How crazy is the Catholic Church

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Maestro - you can use all the boldface and large font that you'd like; it still doesn't mean I'm going to agree that your approach is what is going to be successful or that it is what is needed. What's more, it doesn't create the statistics and backing for success.

It's expedient to write me off as burying my head in the sand and denying reality - it's easy and acceptable in today's political climate. There is a major difference in the approach to the problem of teenage sexuality - and it is a problem. You favor a more clinical approach to the problem, focusing on mitigating the risk through contraceptives and sex education. I favor an approach based on addressing the behavoir that is at the root of creating the risk.

I grew up in NJ, one of the most liberal parts of the US. The NJ school system has long prided itself on its program of sexual education. Before looking at numbers and possible effectiveness, you can first off argue as to whether or not NJ's sex ed program actually entails the necessary education (whole other detailed argument). Now, we can look at the situation in NJ and attempt to judge statistically how this aggressive program has actually worked.

Here is a link that details the topic and sexual eduaction in NJ.
The Failure of Sex Education - 94.10

Here is another link to Guttmacher which produces a lot of good information regarding teen pregnancy. If you focus on NJ, a very "progressive" state, the statistics are indeed terrible. Unfortunately, comprehensive teen pregnancy data more recent than 2000 for the US I don't think is available.

Here is the most recent comprehensive detail of teen pregnancy data from the Guttmacher Institute:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf

You can see NJ saw has seen somewhat of a drop in teen pregnancy, but it has remained relatively constant throughout the '90s. I'll be interested to see more up to date complete data when available. Noteworthy is that NJ is 16th in teen pregnancy, 43rd in teen births, and a whopping 1st in teen pregnancy.

Guttmacher also reports that the US teen pregnancy rate remains almost double that of other nations, including Canada, England, Wales, and eight times the Netherlands and Japan. This opens up a possibility that education could be an important issue, although NJ has long had a well established sex education program. Perhaps there is another issue.

Some interesting details regarding condom usage: 49% of women who received abortion reported that their condum use was inconsistent.

An interesting fact - NJ teen pregnancy cost taxpayers an estimated $167 million in 2004.

Teen pregnancy is a problem, regarless of how you think the problem should be addressed. Even with the implementation of comprehensive sex education programs throughout the US, it remains a major problem, especially in NJ. I believe that it is a problem that is rooted in the deterioration in traditional values. I agree with you that sex ed and contraceptives do in fact reduce teen pregnancy rates to varying degrees of success (I don't think you can argue this one), but there is more to the problem than that. The first article covers many other aspects of the problem that sex ed and contraceptive simply cannot address.

Alright, you can shoot at my idea as much as you want, but how would you deal with it ? You haven't came out with a single clear idea.

As I stated, men will always be men. You can't expect them to keep it in their pants by telling them : "It's a sin." Abstinence is 100% safe, right, but it is not the solution, as teaching that to your kids will only make sex more taboo... But they will still continue to do it in your back. You know how it works, we've all been kids before !

You know, I read your article "The Failure of Sex Education", and it is making some good points. However, as I see it, both your (NJ) and our (PQ) system need some... erhm... "patches" here and there... Because they are not totally complete.

Of course we must give the good old "plumbing lesson" (to quote the article) but we must go farther : explain the differences in mentality and physiology between a boy and a girl (i.e. a boy has his sexual peek around 20, while a girl has her sexual peek around 30), inter-personnal relationships and the like. Both of our sex-ed courses are incomplete.

Those sex-ed classes I had gave me a good start, however I had to complete the course by taking info elsewhere... Medical encyclopedias, psychologists and sexologists hosting shows on the radio/TV.

That's were our kids are missing the boat. However, abstinence is in no way the solution. In fact, it will create more problems than anything else in today's society.

[mkloby]

This is going to be another long one... I'd like to start by saying that I mean no offense to anyone, and not lecturing anyone regarding child upbringing or household model adopted. I am approaching this problem as I believe it exists from a sociological perspective, although of course individual cases and circumstances differ.

I think a major distinction must be made first in how the existence of teen sexuality is viewed. I look at the problem of teen sexuality and pregnancy as a cultural and moral problem, not as an inevitable reality. Every study shows a tremendous increase in teen sexuality from the beginning of the 20th century to now.

In America, we have seen an increasing secularization combined with increasing resistance against traditional Christian values. In addition, there is the increasing influence of mass media on society, as never seen before. I view the problem as a sociological problem. Teen sexual behavior was not simply always like what we are currently experiencing I don't believe the argument that "this is the reality of teen behavior" holds up to historical scrutiny.

In combination with the drive towards "progressive" ideals, the traditional American family unit is increasingly breaking down. The decline of the traditional family model (husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker) can be attributed to the rise of the dual income household, as well as the increase in single parent households due to the rise in divorce rates as well as the increasing rate of children being born out of wedlock (which in the US is currently 39.5%).

American households have also become increasingly consumerist throughout the 20th century. Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School argues that a main causal factor of the dual income household is the desire for larger housing. In order to support this consumerism, many households have adopted the dual income model.

In the US, according to an AmeriStat study done in 2003:
Among married-couple households, about 13 percent consisted of families with children in which only the husband worked, 31 percent were dual-income families with children, 25 percent were dual-income families with no children, and 31 percent consisted of other types of families, such as older married couples whose children no longer reside in the household.

More recent US Census Bureau data from 2007 can be found here:
http://www.census.gov/population/soc...tabFG2-all.xls

Inherent in both the dual income household and the single parent household is a reduction in parental influence, contact, and oversight. There have been many studies done regarding family structure on adolescent sexual behavior, and they overwhelmingly support that an increased family influence reduces at-risk behavior of adolescents, including sexual behavior. Studies generally indicate that an intact family unit with two natural parents has the strongest effect on reducing teen sexual behavior. More difficult to study, however, is the influence of the traditional family model vs the dual income model. I would offer, however, that with the increased family support and structure of the traditional family model, at-risk behavior would decrease further below that of a dual parent family average including both traditional and dual income family models.

This does not address what exactly to do regarding the problem of teen sexual bahvior. The problem is deep, and beyond what merely sex education and distributing condoms can address, although basic sexual education I do not think is a bad thing. The problem with sexual education, as it is exists in many schools, is that many proponents seek to further isolate sexual behavior from the influence of the family, rather than increase it. This is contrary to the vast majority of empirical evidence that demonstrates that family structure is the leading factor in decreasing teen sexual behavior.

An Example of how sexual education programs that seek to isolate the influence of family include anonymous distribution or availability of of condoms and other contraceptives. Another is text that presents pre-marital sexual behavior as a personal choice completely removed from morality altogether. A last example is the push by many in the sexual education field for the removal of parental consent/notification laws with respect to a minor's abortion.

Proposing sexual behavior to our children as a personal right, choice, and decision is dangerous for many reasons. That they are immature children is the obvious and stark reality. Quite frankly, teenagers generally are not mature or responsible enough to handle the responsibility of sexual behavior. This is evident by the sheer numbers of teen pregnancy despite sexual education and the availability of contraceptives. There is also the enormous public cost of teen pregnancy and birth to the taxpayer, as teens often cannot bear the financial costs of their sexual behavior. The moral repugnancy of pre-marital sex in traditional Christian values seems to have a legitimate basis.

[mkloby]

To bring about a change in adolescent sexuality, we must address the factors that have caused the problem to escalate. These are deep rooted issues not easily addressed. They are inter-related, systemic factors, of which adolescent sexual behavior is but one manifestation. In addition to unfettered American consumerism and the decline of the traditional family model, there is been a retreat away from traditional Christian values in the United States. Two critical legal factors which have laid the foundation for this are the erroneous interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

The flawed interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is the leading factor causing . This clause states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," yet it has been interpreted by many to mean "separation of Church and state." That is clearly vague legal terminology, and those hostile toward the religious establishment has continued to push the limits on what the Establishment Clause entails.

One major case that began the charge for "separation of Church and state" was Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Prior to this case, Justice Stephen Field wrote in 1878, "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." The scope of actions that violate the Establishment Clause continue to grow to this day. This faulty interpretation, which is simply not substantiated in the text of the 1st Amendment, has given rise to legalized discrimination of Christianity in America. Christianity is specifically under siege as it is what is under attack in the preponderence of legal action initiated invoking "separation of Church and state." This view has been adopted by and large by American academia, and propagates itself throughout the school systems as well. This has led to an assault on Christian values that is intstitutionalized by the US government.

Christian values are under attack in the public schools and universities, in the legislative halls and the courts, and in the mass media. Those hostile toward Christianity have waged a coordinated campaign intent on removing the influence of Christianity to the greatest degree possible. Christian morality is being replaced with a moral relativism, in which there is no universal right or wrong. Is it truly any wonder that some sexual education programs for teens encourage sexual expression?

Another major factor affecting teen pregnancy was the decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. The decision to overturn state law criminalizing abortion based on due process with regard to privacy. The decision then qualifies when a woman maintains this right, and when the states' interest in promoting potential life may reach a compelling point, and the woman no longer maintains this right. This decision is inerently flawed, providing Constitutional protection of a to terminate a pregnancy, then further qualifying that right without giving any actual legal protection to the developing child under the Constitution.

This decision has been very aggressively propagated as the penultimate and defining acheivment of feminist "liberation." Unfortately, this decision has helped to create an environment that tremendously hurt the feminist cause. Ample evidence of this is found in the tremendous stress brought to women through great increase in teenage pregnancy rates, single-mother households, and dependence on government assistance. An argument can be made that the ground work for the Roe v. Wade decision was laid in the coordinated offensive against the Christianity (and Christian values) under the guise of the 1st Amendment.

A strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause would serve to destroy the legal foundation for the continued discrimination against Christianity in American public education, legislation, and jurisprudence that has fostered the coordinated offensive against Christian values.

The government must also acknowledge the societal benefits of the traditional family unit. This is why the traditional family deserves special status and recognition under the law. It is the core unit that Christian culture (indeed almost all cultures) is built upon, yet it is under attack by the very same forces that seek to remove all influence of Christianity in the US.

Granted, this will not bring about immediate effects, but it will lay the foundation for the return of traditional values that America was founded upon. Bear in mind, we are presently fully reaping the damages that the "progressive" movement has been sowing for decades.

This is what I think. It goes 180* against what many out there will say.

[Soren]

Ok, I'm gonna need a cop of coffee for this one.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by mkloby

A strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause would serve to destroy the legal foundation for the continued discrimination against Christianity in American public education, legislation, and jurisprudence that has fostered the coordinated offensive against Christian values.

The government must also acknowledge the societal benefits of the traditional family unit. This is why the traditional family deserves special status and recognition under the law. It is the core unit that Christian culture (indeed almost all cultures) is built upon, yet it is under attack by the very same forces that seek to remove all influence of Christianity in the US.

Granted, this will not bring about immediate effects, but it will lay the foundation for the return of traditional values that America was founded upon. Bear in mind, we are presently fully reaping the damages that the "progressive" movement has been sowing for decades.

This is what I think. It goes 180* against what many out there will say.

We see this in the same way.

[Maestro]

Wow... After reading both of your posts, I was like "WTF ?", but I'll try to sum it up and reply to it.

So you want the father back to work and the woman back at home. Although it seems realistic on paper, it isn't in practice. I was lucky enough to be raised in such a family, my father had a salary of about $25.00 CND an hour working in a paper factory. Which gives a good paycheck. However, those kind of jobs are more than rare now : they are almost inexistants.

I graduated from high-school in 2001, got a degree in Private Security in 2003 and I've been working as a security officer ever since... My salary is currently of $13.15 CND an hour. Last year I made a salary of about $27,000.00 CND (before taxes and union cuts) and I can barely get enough money to live and pay for my house (which is a very standard house evaluated at about $120,000.00 CND) and the gas to put in my 1997 Ford Ranger. So imagine if I had to feed a wife and two kids... I would hit bankruptsy within a year.

My sister's case is even worse... She graduated from high-school in 1995, got a degree in Dental Assistance around 1997 and a degree in Animal Health Care around 2001 and she is now working as a Animal Health Care Technician at $13.50 CND an hour.

In average, a worker in a factory in the Province of Québec has a salary of about $25,000.00 CND a year.

So, in short, families of today need two salaries to feed their kids.

Also, if we read between the lines, you are stating that couples should not engage in sexual intercourse until wedding... Which is, in my opinion, a load of bullsh*t. As I stated earlier, the Church tried it for centuries before and never succeeded in preventing Mr. X to secretly do Miss Y in her father's barn.

The problem with sexual education of today is that it doesn't go deeply enough (sorry for the pun) into the subject. In fact, they should give a complete course of sexology to make sure everyone clearly understand everything. (Damn, it took me years of "amateur psychology & sexology" to start to understand how a woman "works", I assume it must be the same thing for women vs. men.)

Here is an article I posted on this forum a few months ago : Teen sex study doubts technical virginity | U.S. | Reuters

It proves that brainwashing teens to stay virgin until wedding like some teachers in some states of the US do is a major failure.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I read your post correctly you seems to be against "free" abortion if the teenager is under 18, right ? Stating that most teens are too irresponsible to take their responsabilities.

In other words, if a girl of 16 or 17 gets pregnant, she can't get an abortion without asking permission to her parents, unlike what the current law states. (Currently, the doctor must request the permission of the girl's parents only if she is under the age of 16.) So you could end up with many story like what we saw in the UK, remember the 13 year-old boy who got her 15 year-old girlfriend pregnant and still gave birth to the baby ? My two cents are that their own very religious parents didn't even want to consider the idea of abortion.

So you would certainly end up in the US (mainly in southern states), with a bunch of Jesus-freaks forcing their daughter to give birth to an unwanted child just because she had sex with her boyfriend... Who their parents tried to brainwash to not have sex before wedding, but did it anyway.

Integrism is dangerous, my friend. No matter if it is Muslism, Jewish or Christian integrism. And when gouvernments start sleeping in the same bed than religion, then it is integrism. In Québec we lived in Catholic integrism until we kicked Duplessis' Union Nationale out of the provincial Parliament for good.

Anyway, that's my opinion. Hate it or share it...

[Lucky13]

It's simple. The more that you try to stop them, the more they'll do it!

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

It's simple. The more that you try to stop them, the more they'll do it!

Exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks, Lucky !

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Wow... After reading both of your posts, I was like "WTF ?", but I'll try to sum it up and reply to it.

So you want the father back to work and the woman back at home. Although it seems realistic on paper, it isn't in practice. I was lucky enough to be raised in such a family, my father had a salary of about $25.00 CND an hour working in a paper factory. Which gives a good paycheck. However, those kind of jobs are more than rare now : they are almost inexistants.

I graduated from high-school in 2001, got a degree in Private Security in 2003 and I've been working as a security officer ever since... My salary is currently of $13.15 CND an hour. Last year I made a salary of about $27,000.00 CND (before taxes and union cuts) and I can barely get enough money to live and pay for my house (which is a very standard house evaluated at about $120,000.00 CND) and the gas to put in my 1997 Ford Ranger. So imagine if I had to feed a wife and two kids... I would hit bankruptsy within a year.

My sister's case is even worse... She graduated from high-school in 1995, got a degree in Dental Assistance around 1997 and a degree in Animal Health Care around 2001 and she is now working as a Animal Health Care Technician at $13.50 CND an hour.

In average, a worker in a factory in the Province of Québec has a salary of about $25,000.00 CND a year.

So, in short, families of today need two salaries to feed their kids.

Also, if we read between the lines, you are stating that couples should not engage in sexual intercourse until wedding... Which is, in my opinion, a load of bullsh*t. As I stated earlier, the Church tried it for centuries before and never succeeded in preventing Mr. X to secretly do Miss Y in her father's barn.

The problem with sexual education of today is that it doesn't go deeply enough (sorry for the pun) into the subject. In fact, they should give a complete course of sexology to make sure everyone clearly understand everything. (Damn, it took me years of "amateur psychology & sexology" to start to understand how a woman "works", I assume it must be the same thing for women vs. men.)

Here is an article I posted on this forum a few months ago : Teen sex study doubts technical virginity | U.S. | Reuters

It proves that brainwashing teens to stay virgin until wedding like some teachers in some states of the US do is a major failure.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I read your post correctly you seems to be against "free" abortion if the teenager is under 18, right ? Stating that most teens are too irresponsible to take their responsabilities.

In other words, if a girl of 16 or 17 gets pregnant, she can't get an abortion without asking permission to her parents, unlike what the current law states. (Currently, the doctor must request the permission of the girl's parents only if she is under the age of 16.) So you could end up with many story like what we saw in the UK, remember the 13 year-old boy who got her 15 year-old girlfriend pregnant and still gave birth to the baby ? My two cents are that their own very religious parents didn't even want to consider the idea of abortion.

So you would certainly end up in the US (mainly in southern states), with a bunch of Jesus-freaks forcing their daughter to give birth to an unwanted child just because she had sex with her boyfriend... Who their parents tried to brainwash to not have sex before wedding, but did it anyway.

Integrism is dangerous, my friend. No matter if it is Muslism, Jewish or Christian integrism. And when gouvernments start sleeping in the same bed than religion, then it is integrism. In Québec we lived in Catholic integrism until we kicked Duplessis' Union Nationale out of the provincial Parliament for good.

Anyway, that's my opinion. Hate it or share it...

I'll apologize for the long, disjointed post. It was written throughout the day, broken up by flight planning and other nonsense. But, I'm back from TAD, so free time is not easy to come by anymore!
I did not get a chance to read that link yet, maybe tomorrow morning.

Maestro - I'm not very well versed in Canadian specifics, I'll admit. You argue that the dual income household is a matter of necessity. However, in the US average income in 1920 was about $1200 and in 1950 was approximately $3200, which equals about $13,200 and $28,400 in 2008 dollars respectively. Average income for 2006 was $28,567 ($30,500 2008 dollars) If the number of dual income households was much lower in the past, with average income approximately equal to or less than (much less than for 1920) current income, it stands to reason that it is entirely possible to for a family to be raised in a single income model. The difference is consumerism, and according to Warren, the drive for larger housing. If the statistics are off, please let me know - but as far as I can tell, the statistics point to the dual income household being one of choice, not necessity. Of course, these are national averages, and individual situations differ greatly.

One other note, again going back to the First Amendment. I thought about things some more... I think there needs to be a serious application of a decency standard to freedom of speech. Much of the music, the magazines, movies, etc is extremely vulgar. Freedom of speech carries responsibility, and it must not damage the greater common good. In the military we phrase it as "good order and discipline." If exercising your right to freedom of speech does not meet this standard, then it should no longer fall under protected free speech. The limits of this have been pushed so much further out, even since I was a child. Our children today are swarmed by indecency at every turn, all in the name of artistic expression and freedom of speech. I would argue that our society is not only being ill served by such policy, but it is downright dangerous.

Integrism is a pretty vague term, without a distinct meaning in political science. I do understand what your saying, but there is a vast continuum between complete unification of Church and state as one, and complete separation of Church and state.

However, it still stands that you will not find the words "separation of Church and state" in the US Constitution - it is all a myth (I don't care about that it was used in a letter written by Mr Jefferson!). The interpretation of the Establishment Clause today has no legitimate basis in law.

Originally Posted by Lucky13

It's simple. The more that you try to stop them, the more they'll do it!

This is the type of baseless comment, without any sort of evidence, that has perpetuated itself. Due to the fact that teen sexual behavior has increased dramatically over the last 100 years, while attitudes have become more accepting of the behavior, completely contradicts this.

[Lucky13]

What is it that they say about the forbidden fruit taste the best....
This thread is interesting, gives me a bit of different views of different religions, just hope that we can keep it tidy...

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Maestro - I'm not very well versed in Canadian specifics, I'll admit. You argue that the dual income household is a matter of necessity. However, in the US average income in 1920 was about $1200 and in 1950 was approximately $3200, which equals about $13,200 and $28,400 in 2008 dollars respectively. Average income for 2006 was $28,567 ($30,500 2008 dollars) If the number of dual income households was much lower in the past, with average income approximately equal to or less than (much less than for 1920) current income, it stands to reason that it is entirely possible to for a family to be raised in a single income model. The difference is consumerism, and according to Warren, the drive for larger housing. If the statistics are off, please let me know - but as far as I can tell, the statistics point to the dual income household being one of choice, not necessity. Of course, these are national averages, and individual situations differ greatly.

One other note, again going back to the First Amendment. I thought about things some more... I think there needs to be a serious application of a decency standard to freedom of speech. Much of the music, the magazines, movies, etc is extremely vulgar. Freedom of speech carries responsibility, and it must not damage the greater common good. In the military we phrase it as "good order and discipline." If exercising your right to freedom of speech does not meet this standard, then it should no longer fall under protected free speech. The limits of this have been pushed so much further out, even since I was a child. Our children today are swarmed by indecency at every turn, all in the name of artistic expression and freedom of speech. I would argue that our society is not only being ill served by such policy, but it is downright dangerous.

Concerning the salaries in the '20s, I don't have the numbers myself. But it must be about the same thing. But don't forget that, back in that time, about 70% of the population was working and living on farms (at least in Canada)... Which greatly helps to feed your family.

Now it's the other way around with about 30% of the population living on farms. So now about 70% of the population has to buy 100% of their food.

Concerning freedom of speech, and being a fan of Howard Stern myself, I completely desagree with you. The moment you start touching that right, you start walking on the very thin line separating democracy from dictatorship.

I don't care how many time one of those "wannabe pimps" rappers says : "f*ck da bitch" or "com' see you' masta, you li'le slut".

I don't care neither if Robert DeNiro says : "So, you're f*cking my wife you son of a bitch ?" Or if Silvester Stallone says : "Get over here, you mother f*ckers." Or if a pilot in a video game says : "Why don't you flyboys give us some cover, God damn it !" It just make it more real, because peoples in real life who are under pressure talks that way. No one in a make or break situation is gonna say : "Would you mind passing me the bazooka, please ?" no, he's gonna says : "Gimme that bazooka, for God sake !"

I don't care neither if a TV/radio host says : "Hey, did you see Miss X from Channel N ? Looks like her boobs are bigger than her brain." (This last example really happened here.) You can't just shut down the TV/radio channel or fire the host because of that. If you do so you are crossing the border I described earlier.

You are the one with the remote control, so it's up to you to switch to an other channel or turn off the TV/radio. Not to the gouvernment to control the shows for the kids because the parents are too lazy to do it themselves. A TV/radio is a machine, not a babysitter.

In French we says : "La liberté des uns s'arrête là où celle des autres commence." Translated : "The freedom of ones' stops where the freedom of others starts."

If you start censoring signers/hosts/writers, then you are attacking their right to speak and our right to listen to them. If you don't want to listen to them, then switch of channel... Or turn off the friggin TV/radio.

You were also speaking about magazines... I never saw anything indecent in magazines over here. Or may be you are talking about Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse and that kind of stuff ? If so it's up to you to not let your men magazines on the coffee table, damn it !

No, I was joking with my last paragraph, however one part is true : if you don't want your kids to watch porn, it's up to you to make sure they won't... It's not up to the gouvernment to ban it for everyone !

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Integrism is a pretty vague term, without a distinct meaning in political science. I do understand what your saying, but there is a vast continuum between complete unification of Church and state as one, and complete separation of Church and state.

However, it still stands that you will not find the words "separation of Church and state" in the US Constitution - it is all a myth (I don't care about that it was used in a letter written by Mr Jefferson!). The interpretation of the Establishment Clause today has no legitimate basis in law.

I'm not arguing the Thomas Jefferson thing.

However, in my opinion, as soon as the Church gets close to power, then the sh*t is gonna hit the fan. We experienced this with Maurice Duplessis and the Union Nationale. He was close to the Church and was doing everything the Church was asking him to do. Even the "padlock law", which was a law that was making illegal any type of workers' union... As it was seen by the Church as a Communist thing.

Communist = Bolshevick = "Unfaithful"

Originally Posted by mkloby

This is the type of baseless comment, without any sort of evidence, that has perpetuated itself. Due to the fact that teen sexual behavior has increased dramatically over the last 100 years, while attitudes have become more accepting of the behavior, completely contradicts this.

Well, not really. I don't think the numbers of "indecency" (i.e. sex before wedding, aldultary, etc.) has really changed through the years. It is just that the age of the crowd doing it got younger.

Of course it is very hard to find numbers on "indecencies", as sex was very taboo back in the day, however I can name you more than a few famous peoples who did it. (I.e. Kings, noblemen, ministers, actors, writers, etc...)

[Lucky13]

This with in some cases Catholic and Protestant Church reminds me of.....err...hhhmmm...yeah, the English and Americans are two people separated by a common language, if you know what I mean?

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

This with in some cases Catholic and Protestant Church reminds me of.....err...hhhmmm...yeah, the English and Americans are two people separated by a common language, if you know what I mean?

I think I see your point, yeah.