Mike,

>>Sure, if the total numbers of unwanted babies were reduced.
>
>Teaching people to avoid physical contact to achieve this goal is rather self defating, don't you think?

No, not at all. If we all agree that peer pressure works in one direction, why not the other? Besides, I've alrady pointed out that this has worked in the past. The big differences is that today's youth has much less support from their communities in terms of morals and proper behavior.

>
>>?? So parents that want their kids to abstain from sex before marriage are 'overprotective'??
>
>Some are.

That doesn't really prove the point though, does it? There are exceptions to almost all rules but you don't toss the rules out because there are exceptions...

>
>>I don't have any real gripe with the whole notion of teaching kids about safe sex but I think it is far better to teach them to wait. Why not both?
>
>Why wait? We've already talked about Love being a chemical reaction that lasts about 18-30 months. Why lock a human into something that may not be desirable thanks to our very instincts.

That's your take. Love in my mind contains the word 'committment' and 'trust' and so forth and marriage is the perfect way to express one's committment.

The real differences you and I have here are in the definition of 'our very instincts'. In my view we are all made in God's image but we have all fallen but we all have a conscience telling us what is right and wrong - quite apart from the physical drives. You either do not seem to recognize their existence or are perhaps suppressing your conscience. IOW, I think man is far more than animal and it appears you do not.

>
>Its far better to teach the children to be happy, to understand what sex is, and what making love is. If you want proof of this, look at the Catholic church at the moment. They're considering giving up cellabcy because of the unhealthy side effects. Sexual depravation is not the answer.

"Making love" is really just another euphamism for "having sex". One can "have sex" without love being present and one can be in love without expressing it via a sexual union. The best of both worlds is to have both (in the bonds of marriage <g>).

>
>>>Thats why ENgland is changing its stance on pot, so when they talk abotu the dangers of cocaine and herion, the kids will believe them.
>>Bad move IMO.
>
>Reasons? Keep in mind not one person has ever died due to the toxincity of pot. Not one in its 3000 recorded years of use. If kids can safely smoke pot, and in turn stay away from cocain and herion, I say, no hard done.

Hmm.. I dunno. I've seen some prety wasted folks over the years and who have I'm sure done things (like with alcohol) to lose their lives. IOW, with alcohol you can directly poison yourself to deat whereas with marijuana perhaps you cannot, but that doesn't mean that there are no deliterious side effects..

>
>Take a look at whats happening in England. Can you find a single study that suggests that the new policies are not working?

Where was it.. Switzerland, where they had drug zones much like you are suggesting. If I recall they were shut down and/or more tightly restricted as a direct result of the local communities troubles.

>
>Regardless, kids are not stupid. Don't lie to them, be honest, have reasons for what you tell them, and they will believe you. Give them bullshit, and they will not trust you when its really important.

I agree. The trouble though is most folks don't know beans from buttermilk about the relationship between the concept of absolute truths and their daily applications.

>
>Amazingly enough, this requires that we be honest with ourselves before we can be honest with our children.

I find that there are precious few individuals that are willing to undergo the pain of that level of self examination Mike. I agree that it can be healthy, but not always. Besides.. At some point it becomes nothing more than an exercise in narcissism and that is unhealthy at best.