The horror, the horror...!

[MagiDragon]

*long slow whistle* That's pretty weird. I just feel bad for them, 'cause they're training themselves to not know how to handle a stable relationship. Any of these people that are willing to "hook up" with someone in the first days of a relationship truly have no idea about the word "committment." Without that word, they're not gonna be able to have any relationship that lasts. Even the "romantics" in that group are probably beyond hope without some pretty drastic guidance.

Pax Christi,
Joe

(Yes . . . i may actually decide to haunt phatmass again for a while . . .)

[prose]

Wow.

I mean, sex was open in my highschool, but not THAT open.

I can't believe that we as a society are allowing our youth to feel that this is normal, and acceptable behavior. I wish I could figure out how to get the point across that we need to change this now without sounding like a "Bible thumper" to the youth.

There must be a way. We are losing the innocence of our youth.

[track2004]

That was a really interesting article.

My own high school had a group of kids who were sexually deviant, in that most of them have come out in the two years since I've graduated. We also had a big group of kids who were just having premarital sex. Anyway, I find the article really interesting in that it pushes the idea of an undefined sexuality. It really is true that today most kids don't define sexuality in to the gay or straight polarity. This group is young and from a very specific kind of life style, but a lot of their thoughts are the thoughts of many 15 to 25 year olds, and probably future generations. I know my qwerty friends sometimes have a hard time describing who they like. So from my liberal public college side, that was a really cool article, and I wonder if some of my professors have seen it...

[cmotherofpirl]

Its interesting and sad to me that the school permits this to happen in the hallways. Not shocking, since schools are lousy teachers of morals or behavior.

[peach_cube]

Ewww. Shouldn't the school be sued for allowing something like that to happen? I don't care if their afraid of the kids or whatever, start out by kicking the older ones out of school permanently. Suspend the other ones that are not 16. When the kids act out about send them before the magistrate. If a teacher refuses to do anything about they can be fired. No union would back a teacher that allowed kids to make out publiclly in school. There is no excuse for this to take place in our schools.

[Norseman82]

Is this school on the same planet we are????

[SanctifyMe]

wow...that is so sad. I did not know how easy i had it, growing up in a small farm town~,

I think i am still sheltered compared to those kids.

[gelibeme]

???OPEN MINDED???
This is not progressive, it's regressive
[quote]Then again, none of them are bad kids. Sure, they drink and smoke and party, but in a couple of years, they’ll be drinking and smoking and partying at Princeton or MIT. They had to be pretty serious students to even get into Stuyvesant, which accepts only about 3 percent of its applicants.[/quote]
What a shame and a sorrow not to know what it means to differentiat between good and evil. Moral relativist brainwash.

[shortnun]

[quote name='track2004' date='Feb 4 2006, 03:34 AM']That was a really interesting article.

My own high school had a group of kids who were sexually deviant, in that most of them have come out in the two years since I've graduated.  We also had a big group of kids who were just having premarital sex.  Anyway, [b]I find the article really interesting in that it pushes the idea of an undefined sexuality.  It really is true that today most kids don't define sexuality in to the gay or straight polarity.  This group is young and from a very specific kind of life style, but a lot of their thoughts are the thoughts of many 15 to 25 year olds, and probably future generations.  I know my qwerty friends sometimes have a hard time describing who they like. [/b] So from my liberal public college side, that was a really cool article, and I wonder if some of my professors have seen it...
[right][snapback]875465[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[Emphasis mind]

Track... you and I think a lot alike about this kinda stuff (and we may be in the minority here, but oh well). Aaaaaaaaand, I still crack up every time I read the word "qwerty" on Phatmass.

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Feb 4 2006, 10:26 AM']Ewww.  Shouldn't the school be sued for allowing something like that to happen?  I don't care if their afraid of the kids or whatever, start out by kicking the older ones out of school permanently.  Suspend the other ones that are not 16. When the kids act out about send them before the magistrate.  If a teacher refuses to do anything about they can be fired.  No union would back a teacher that allowed kids to make out publiclly in school.  There is no excuse for this to take place in our schools.
[right][snapback]875539[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Seriously? If you do believe it's inappropriate for such things to happen in public (regardless of if it's a private or public school)--and I do think it's inappropriate--law suits and expulsions would [b]not [/b]be the most effective way to handle this situation. It doesn't allow for any moments of pastoral attention (compassion, etc) to be given to these students. Such actions would completely ignore the needs that these boys and girls think they are fulfilling by having cuddle puddles. I agree, such behavior is disrespectful to themselves and to those around them. But I wouldn't handle it in such a fashion you describe.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Feb 3 2006, 10:48 AM']WARNING:  THE FOLLOWING LINK IS TO AN ARTICLE CONTAINING A RATHER EXPLICIT DESCRIPTION OF A PRACTICE IN A HIGH SCHOOL IN NEW YORK INVOLVING SEXUAL DEVIANCY.

IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN.

[url="http://www.nymetro.com/news/features/15589/"]NY Metro article[/url]http://www.nymetro.com/news/features/15589/

what the heck is going on!?
[right][snapback]874281[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The fruits of democratic liberalism. Ignore the laws and what is right and just.

They have been programmed by Hollywood and New York media. It seem to really kick into high gear (the acceptance of the same sex relationships and pagan style orgies) with MTV's The "Real" World. Which was totally unreal, they took deviants and people with behavior and social issues and called it "normal American teen"... teens with poor parenting watched it and where programmed.... hence now we have shows like Will & Grace.

It all comes down to Romans 1 and the sign of the times.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' date='Feb 4 2006, 02:34 AM']That was a really interesting article.

My own high school had a group of kids who were sexually deviant, in that most of them have come out in the two years since I've graduated.  We also had a big group of kids who were just having premarital sex.  Anyway, I find the article really interesting in that it pushes the idea of an undefined sexuality.  It really is true that today most kids don't define sexuality in to the gay or straight polarity.  This group is young and from a very specific kind of life style, but a lot of their thoughts are the thoughts of many 15 to 25 year olds, and probably future generations.  I know my qwerty friends sometimes have a hard time describing who they like.  So from my liberal public college side, that was a really cool article, and I wonder if some of my professors have seen it...
[right][snapback]875465[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Wnat do you mean by "interesting"?
You talk almost as though you think this is some positive thing.

I find it simply disgusting, and sad.

[Socrates]

[quote name='gelibeme' date='Feb 4 2006, 03:54 PM']???OPEN MINDED???
This is not progressive, it's regressive

What a shame and a sorrow not to know what it means to differentiat between good and evil.  Moral relativist brainwash.
[right][snapback]875836[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Exactly. Yet the liberals seem to consider moral relativism the highest mark of learning and education, and consider even believing in the existance of objective right and wrong a sign of ignorance and bigotry.

I've been called an "ignorant bigot" and "idiotic" by liberal-minded people for saying that actions can be objectively wrong.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 4 2006, 06:08 PM']Exactly.  Yet the liberals seem to consider moral relativism the highest mark of learning and education, and consider even believing in the existance of objective right and wrong a sign of ignorance and bigotry.

I've been called an "ignorant bigot" and "idiotic" by liberal-minded people for saying that actions can be objectively wrong.
[right][snapback]875883[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Perhaps they are embracing the "No child left behind" philosophy.

[Snarf]

The absence of objective wrong does not infer the lack of any wrong. What we base as being objectively wrong is actually subjective to the existence of God's judgment. I believe in God's judgment, so I base my moral system accordingly. In a solipsistic mindset, there cannot possibly be morals. Right and wrong, therefore, are subservient to epistemological credulity.

I'm sure you have the charity to believe that most liberals do not think of themselves as the only facet of existence, so you have to concede that they have morality. You don't have to agree with their system of morals, but you cannot rationaly deny the existence of liberal morality. It might be as simple as "killing is wrong because it will incur negative sanctions from society's self-preservation", but at least it works. Only in misguided cases such as being pro-choice is an egocentric moral system detrimental to others.

So kids are having sex--it's unfortunate any time someone succumbs to sin, but it's part of being human. The only future I see for them is that the orgasm will lose meaning, and so at some point a sense of love as personal connection will most likely arise. What gives Augustine his license to speak against licentiousness is the fact that he was once a lecher.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 4 2006, 05:40 PM']The absence of objective wrong does not infer the lack of any wrong.  What we base as being objectively wrong is actually subjective to the existence of God's judgment.  I believe in God's judgment, so I base my moral system accordingly.  In a solipsistic mindset, there cannot possibly be morals.  Right and wrong, therefore, are subservient to epistemological credulity.[/quote]
Speak English here, professor.
Natural Law is written on the hearts of all men, and to be moral we must act accordingly.

[quote]I'm sure you have the charity to believe that most liberals do not think of themselves as the only facet of existence, so you have to concede that they have morality.  You don't have to agree with their system of morals, but you cannot rationaly deny the existence of liberal morality.  It might be as simple as "killing is wrong because it will incur negative sanctions from society's self-preservation", but at least it works.  Only in misguided cases such as being pro-choice is an egocentric moral system detrimental to others.[/quote]
No one said liberals have no "morality." But the only "morality" that matters or has meaning as that which conforms to the Truth of God's Natural Law. If we simply declare that morality is totally subjective, and what is moral for each person depends solely on what that individual personally believes to be moral or immoral, we have complete moral anarchy. (Just look around for evidence.)

You have not shown how being "pro-choice" is really any different from any other "ego-centric" "morality."
I'm sure that there are plenty of people who don't think killing is wrong and who don't care about, or feel confident they can avoid, "negative sanctions from society's self-preservation," or feel that in their particular case their murderous action is justified. (Same with stealing, lying, or any other action you'd say most would consider immoral.)

[quote]So kids are having sex--it's unfortunate any time someone succumbs to sin, but it's part of being human.  The only future I see for them is that the orgasm will lose meaning, and so at some point a sense of love as personal connection will most likely arise.  [right][snapback]875898[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Are you implying here that no one should say or do anything about such immorality, or even try to encourage them to do otherwise?
That is again nonsensical.
In times past, when there were higher standards of pubnlic morality, such behavior would not have been tolerated - and there was much less of it.

[quote]What gives Augustine his license to speak against licentiousness is the fact that he was once a lecher.[/quote]
Not clear what your point is, but are you saying that was the [b]only[/b] reason Augustine had "license" to speak against lechery?

By this logic, one must have to have been a murderer to speak against murder, a thief to speak against theft, a liar to speak against lying, and so forth.