Sex Ed classes or "WHY WON'T YOU TEACH ME USEFUL THINGS, EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM?"

On that topic, it's something I've been told once, I was wearing shorts and some random dude in the street told me I should "respect myself more". I think he was calling me a slut ? Whatever, my point is, I'm currently in a monogamous relationship because my partner is very monogamous and it would hurt his feeling if I were to date around. Well, I'm just not being a jerk to him, I'm not feeling "better about myself" for acting like a decent human being. I don't think any monogamous person ever is patting themselves on the back, going all "hey I'm only fucking with one partner, what a great dude/dudette I am !". It only makes sense that people who have sex with multiple partners don't feel better about themselves either.

It also reminds me of all the homophobic jerks that have been roaming the streets and shouting that gay marriage was a bad idea because gay people would then be allowed to adopt. One of their main argument was "oh but the children with gay couples for parents would be mocked in school, that's why we can't let that happen !". So yeah "we're homophobic and our homophobia will make these children suffer, so let's not allow those couples to adopt". We're facing the same kind of non-sense here. "I will shame people from having sex with multiple partners BECAUSE I think people who have sex with multiple partners don't feel good about themselves." Of course they won't be okay with themselves if there's judgmental assholes to harass them.

Actually, I'm enjoying all the historic context everyone is giving, I'm learning (and relearning, because school was quite a fair number of years ago) a lot. So thank you everybody for being so well learned !

I like you.

I don't think that's the aim of most of us here; we're just trying to fus-ro-dah him out of the thread. Such are the ways of Santorum.

However, there are a lot of people -- even the most extreme -- who do eventually learn how to live with their faith and live in the Real World.

The thing is that if you believe in the literal truth of scripture then you also must accept ample evidence that there was in fact a whole load of polygamy and fucking going on throughout human history, because that shit is all over the Old Testament.

In fact hilariously there are indications that that in Roman times it was the (pagan) Romans who were insisting that Jews cut it out with the multiple wives:

Much later, Martin Luther was in favour of plural marriage.

Wait, really? Do people not just like, all have that where you live? A very large majority of people have it here. I can't imagine any social stigma about it.

Hey this seems like as good a place as any to ask. What's the deal with (what looks like) fundies picking-and-choosing the bits they like from the Old Testament? I'm vaguely aware that the claim is that Jesus waved his hand and said you don't have to do that stuff anymore but why is, e.g., eating shrimp cool but fucking dudes not?

People are incredibly uninformed, we call that "bouton de fièvre" (fever zit ?), and most people don't know it's herpes. And if they know it is, they often think the only way to catch herpes is... Genitals related. A "joke" you can hear when someone has blisters showing up is "So, who's the lucky one you gave a blowjob ?" and you can only imagine what people thought when they saw me as a kid...

It's actually the same in the US; they're commonly called "fever blisters" or "cold sores" without any sort of correlation with herpes simplex. If people knew chicken pox (varicelle) was caused by a species of herpes, they'd really shit.

Guys, just want to thank you guys for keeping this thread going, I appreciate it.

On the topic of herpes, I didn't even know that. That really puts things into perspective, though.

This is actually a great question with a very complicated answer. One of the best things about my high school sex ed class (which for political reasons was forbidden from covering certain topics, and gender-separated) was that the coach (a gym teacher) was really good at drawing out everyone's super-awkward questions (like that one). The main value of this was not the answers, but seeing that everyone else in the class was just as ignorant as everyone else, in different areas.

I don't know about that. The sores themselves are called "cold sores" or "fever blisters," but the disease is called "oral herpes" and I don't think anyone who knows that the sores are caused by a disease and not simply random occurrences is confused about that. I've also never heard of anyone in the US thinking that the way you got cold sores was by giving blowjobs. Really it's the prevalence I'm curious about; in the US you'd never hear someone make a crack about somebody having a cold sore because somewhere between 2/3 and 4/5 of American adults have HSV-1 and cold sores are therefore extremely commonplace. I don't know why, but I assumed it was more or less like that everywhere.

While there was polygamy, this is never something that God approved anywhere in the scriptural text. His pronouncement in this regard is in Deut. 17:14-17, where He is explicitly against it.

Polygamy is like divorce, something which the Jews practiced and which God reluctantly allowed due to the "hardness of their hearts", but which for which the original intent was restored with the coming of Christ (see Matt 19:3-8).

Also, when it comes to "pick and choosing" parts of old Commandments to follow, this is a common misunderstanding. The New Testament instructs us that the old ceremonial customs are not valid anymore with the coming of Christ, only the moral ones remain, the best explanation for which is found in Col. 13-23.

Except for his exposing of Vatican corruption in regards to practices such as indulgences, you won't find me as a traditionalist Catholic to support Martin Luther in any way, who had many frankly heretical and plain weird views.

Because a lot of dudes want to eat shrimp and not that many of them (only the gross ones!) want to fuck other dudes. Don't overthink it.

Obviously I was not clear enough, HHR.

This thread is not about monogamy or polyamory. It's about sex ed classes. No, the two are not the same thing. If you want to talk about how monogamy is morally superior because your faith decrees it, take it elsewhere this is not the thread for that.

If you want to discuss actual sex ed courses, feel free to stay, otherwise I ask that you please leave. Seriously, I didn't want to have to post this, but either I didn't explain myself properly in my other post or you're ignoring what I'm saying.

Of course, we just happen to have a fundamental disagreement over sexual education. I was just correcting deep misconceptions about Scriptures that were thrown my way.

The fuck does any of this have to do with sex ed?

Married people still need sex ed. They need it for themselves, they need it to teach their children when said kids get misinformation from their friends, they need it if, god forbid, they or someone they know is raped or sexually assaulted, they need it if they have trouble conceiving, they need it if they already have as many children as they want, they need it if they have an unexpected pregnancy and plan to keep the child, they need it if they have an unexpected pregnancy and plan to terminate, they need it if they have an unexpected pregnancy and adopt out the child.

Exactly where in the bible are we forbidden to discuss how our bodies function?

And if you honestly think that, if your children are both presented with sex education and you and your wife's moral framework, that they will choose to reject Christianity or will choose to sin or some such other thing, then that's a problem with Christianity and the way you raised them, not with sex ed. If presenting them with facts about their bodies gets between them and their religion, that's religion's problem, because the facts aren't going to just go away.

So, sex ed classes. Here's something that's vaguely on topic!

One way that my junior high sex ed class tried to help us stay Pure Monogamous Sex-Only For Marriage Christians was to hand around photocopied sheets of how to say no when a significant other is pressuring you into sex. (And I do respect and admire that they made it clear that both boys and girls could be doing or receiving the pressure in this regard, complete with an awkward quote from some teenage boy talking about how hard it was for him to keep it in his pants when his girlfriend wanted to have sex.) Unfortunately, the "ways to say no" wasn't about consent or the like, but a bunch of hilarious explanations for why you didn't want to have sex just then.

They were not hilarious. Even by the low, awkward standards of repressed missionary preteens.

So how would this particular aspect of sex ed--discussing how to handle different sexual desires in a relationship--be handled in a more useful manner? I have a vague idea of how it should talk about the importance of consent, and how there is never an obligation to give in to someone else's desire, and how wanting something that the other person doesn't--or vice versa--isn't wrong, but is something to discuss in a relationship. Maybe some discussion of how to avoid getting into situations where it's easier to accidentally cross boundaries; I did find, despite the heavy helping of religion, that it was useful to learn rules like "If you have a specific line you're not willing to cross, don't stop juuuuust before it, slow down well before you reach that point, so that there's not nearly so much pressure to keep going just a little further." It was useful in the other direction, too: learning not to pressure other people for just a liiiiittle bit more (in sexual and non-sexual contexts) just because we weren't quite up to the Line of No.

But this is all sort of vague and fuzzy ideas. I'd like to hear more from people who've actually seen something like a decent sex ed program how to discuss setting boundaries in a relationship, and respecting those boundaries, and making them clear, without it being married to a Sex Is A Terrible Thing meme.

See, this is the thing, HHR. You're promoting a rather judgemental and unhealthy method of teaching about sex. We can disagree on that and though, like I said before, I find your views distressing, I can respect you have a different opinion.

What I cannot tolerate is you trying to make this thread about how people should teach kids monogamy is the right way, because of several reasons:

1) Sex ed is not talking about romantic relationships necessarily. It's talking about sex. It's teaching kids what they might encounter if they ever have sex, and this is valuable information regardless of whether they sleep around or wait until they're married to consummate. I repeat, regardless of when and how they have sex, having information on it is always, always, always for the best.

2) NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME FAITH OR RELIGIOUS VIEWS AS YOU. KINDLY STOP TRYING TO FORCE THEM ON OTHERS. You do not have to agree with other viewpoints or opinions. You do not have to like them. But you better damn well respect them if you want others to respect yours.

3) Sex ed classes can mention types of relationships. I think that's a good idea, but only if done in a non-judgemental manner and if it doesn't promote one as being morally superior or better to the other. Your claims of saying monogamy is the best path are not only rude and insulting, but condescending and, at some extremes, a mode of discrimination against others with different lifestyles.

4) Ultimately, that gets in the way of TALKING ABOUT SEX WHICH IS THE FUCKING POINT OF SEX ED CLASS.

So while I'm not trying to stop you from defending your views, I'm asking you to stop derailing my fucking thread. Make a new thread where people can discuss the virtues of monogamy versus the evils of polygamy, okay? Go make one. If you won't, I will make one for you, alright? But stop. Derailing. My fucking thread.

Thank you. I'm sorry I got this angry, but seriously, this is just becoming grating.

I had to look up what Col. is -- I was raised Jewish, I'm not well-acquainted with the New Testament -- and assuming I'm looking at the right thing, 13-23 read as follows:

Source here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians 1:13-23&version=NIV

Unless there's a huge difference in translation between this and whatever version you're talking about, I'm not seeing how this is relevant.


edit: He's talking specific scripture because I asked, guys, don't jump down his throat about it. (There's plenty of other stuff to jump down his throat about.)

Or in other words; "If I was wrong about historical monogamy maybe I'm wrong about sex education too!". The Old Testament God basically gave not one single fuck about polygamy as numerous honest biblical scholars will tell you. I mean we are looking at a guy who had an angry bear tear some children to shreds for calling a priest 'baldy' here. If he was really super bothered by polygamy he'd hardly have been giving David at least seven wives, and indeed offering his top brosef a wife top-up if he wanted it.

But yeah we are getting way off sex education. I'm pretty sure that the Old Testament God would have been A OK with sex education as long as he got to watch the results. Dude was totally a peeper.

FTFY.

Okay, HHR, another thing: You can teach your children the values of monogamy. That's okay. I support that. Go do it.

Don't try to force it on other children, though. They will make their own decisions, and they will make those decisions best with a comprehensive sex ed class, asking their parents and, again, by making their own decisions.

Again, for the final and last time: Sex ed is not about teaching kids which romantic relationship is best. Sex ed is giving non-judgemental and clear information on the mechanics related to sex and other necessary things to know.

If you want to bring up monogamy again, make a new thread, link to it here, and we'll continue the conversation there.

Thank you.

I just realized that Adam and Eve is a parable about sex ed.

Adam and Eve are told not to eat the fruit of a tree from the Garden of Eden (have sex). They're not told why, or what the consequences will be, just that they shouldn't do it. The serpent (societal pressures, curiosity about one's body, etc.) tempts Eve who then tempts Adam and they do it anyway (as people generally will do; certainly didn't stop HHR from waiting until marriage), and then god is shocked, SHOCKED that they just went and did it even though he said no and didn't explain any of the possible consequences or reasoning, and then punished them with body shame and pain in childbirth (the societal shame and bodily pains of being a pregnant teenager, etc.).

Perfect.

IT DIDN'T EVEN WORK FOR THE FIRST TWO PEOPLE ON EARTH WHY THE FUCK WOULD IT WORK NOW?

YOU JUST NEED FAITH, ALLIGATOR! HAVE FAITH AND ALL SHALL FALL INTO PLACE.

Except it doesn't work that way. People need information to raise awareness and understanding. Claiming otherwise proves just how out of touch with the current society you are and I'm not saying this to be condescending, I'm saying this with distress because so many problems could be avoided if people knew things properly.

There are so, so many problems in life that I avoided because my school or my parents stopped and actually talked about them before I got there. Sure, I didn't always take every single aspect of their advice, so sometimes I had problems I could've avoided if I listened to them. But other times... I did take their advice! I avoided problems because I was warned and paid attention!

So I'm just saying, yeah, I think this is a good plan even when the potential problems we're talking about happen to overlap with that scary scary group of situations that involve sex, sexuality, genitalia, and so forth.

But more importantly, where in The Silmarillion does Eru Ilúvatar say that sex education is ok for elves but not for humans?

I wish you hadn't. I hate when people engage with these dipshits on their own terms, as though "The Bible says so" is in any way a legitimate argument. Maybe the Bible backs HHR up and maybe it doesn't; I honestly don't give a shit because the Bible is a book about HHR's supernatural beliefs. It isn't the responsibility of rational people to square other peoples' superstitions with real life.

Also guys, remember that time we had a thread about a billboard that was mildly snarky toward religious people, and half of you were all "not cool man, gotta be nice to Christians and never make fun of their beliefs at all?" Yeah, the fact that people like HHR have enough numbers and power to actually let their insane beliefs fuck up our educational system is one big reason I'm pretty ok with that.

I always like the part where religious people calls out other religious people's views and call them weird.

Yeah, surprisingly enough I didn't mention Luther in the hope that you'd convert to Lutheranism or anything, HHR. The point was to demonstrate - conveniently, via the medium of inerrant scripture - that, contrary to your earlier assertion that the current sexually liberal mores of the last sixty years or so represent an unprecedented diversion from a previously unbroken tradition of monogamy stretching back for millennia, instead people have been sleeping with multiple partners (under varying degrees of religious approval) for the whole of recorded human history.

Well I guess I'll go ahead and open this can of worms and pray I make my dodge roll before HHR shows up again.

My home state recently axed a proposed bill that would have prevented any sort of discussion of anything other than heterosexuality in elementary and middle schools. Not a damn word. Like it just didn't exist. Forget about sex ed, it's alone nasty and ambiguous once a kid goes to a school counselor and says, "Hey, I feel things, what the fuck, help me out." In fact, one version of the bill required the school to notify parents if a teacher suspects their child is gay. Fortunately, the bill's sponsor is a crackpot who likes to tell people that straight people don't get AIDS among other things, and there are enough bleeding liberals in Nashville to usually balance out the rest of the state. Nashville is a good enough place to be openly gay, but as much as I enjoy visiting the rest of the state, I wouldn't want to wave my fag-loving pinko socialist flag around too much in most of it.

Some Missouri legislators apparently thought the whole thing was a good enough idea to put forth similar legislation of their own; the bill's co-sponsor cooked up the eloquent argument that "there is no need to talk about Billy wanting to marry a goat". This is the kind of forward intellect that is shaping the US education system, so it's little wonder that our teachers get paid shit and our graduates can barely spell.

Which brings us to sex education in general. What good is a modern sex education curriculum without discussing homosexuality (and pansexuality, asexuality, and a slew of other things) frankly, honestly, and at length? As far as I'm concerned, it's as basic to understanding sexuality as learning about menstruation or how to put on a condom, and just as important to every student regardless of their orientation or understanding. And I personally know quite a few people who may have been just a little less confused and alone at a vulnerable time if the education environment had been able to spell these things out for them and let them know that it is normal and will be okay.

The problem is what we've already seen -- every little bit of honest educational exposure in our schools is immediately challenged as "promoting" one thing or another. Promiscuity. The "homosexual agenda". Even when Latino history classes in Arizona got axed as "anti-American" and "anti-white" because they dealt with honest American colonial history that challenges the idea that Columbus was anything but a pioneering saint.

How do we get past this? It's 2013 and we live in a climate where crazy white males in power want to force us to forget that sex happens in anything but the missionary position on your (heterosexual) wedding night. We can't even let teachers teach basic learning in our schools anymore with the current standardized testing climate, so it's difficult and discouraging to expect anything more in a lot of parts of the country. The running excuse is that sexuality is "best taught in the home". But where does it start when many parents still have a shaky understanding and have a hard time getting the subject going because they aren't professional educators, and even our legislators flaunt their woeful ignorance on sexual issues? It's not just about keeping kids from getting knocked up or catching the clap, it needs to be considered a social imperative for the health, safety, education, and economy of a functioning society and is as important as algebra or geography.

To address just that bit of it: it's also damn awkward to talk about sex with one's parents. Especially if one's parents are from a culture that is not big into talking about sex in general.

When I was in high school my mom sat me and my little sister down and said, quite sincerely, that she wanted to answer any questions we had about sex. Go ahead and ask anything at all. You know what I asked? NOT ONE DAMN QUESTION. I love my mother, and I trust my mother, and there was no way in hell that in my awkward teenage years I was going to ask questions about sex that implied I was actually thinking about sex. Or wanted to know about sex that wasn't already stamped with the APPROVED seal by the local culture.

(I also didn't ask any questions when our sex ed class let us write them down anonymously on slips of paper, because I was pretty damn sure the teacher would recognize my handwriting. Maybe we need roaming bands of itinerant sex educators to sweep through schools periodically.)

HHR: Sleeping with multiple partners one after another isn't polygamy if you only had one partner at any one time. Do you think you should have forced yourself to marry the first woman you slept with? Would your life be a net positive if you had? Would your life as a Christian be a net positive if you had? I know you don't think it would be.

Yes. Yes yes yes. All of the various sex ed seminars and classes I had were best when conducted by a sex educator (or in one case, an exceptional health teacher). The stuff in elementary school was taught by our regular classroom teacher, and mostly relied on really confusing videos (I walked out of my very first sex ed class thinking that boys also menstruated). The stuff in middle school was taught by phys ed teachers, who didn't really have a specialty in health or biology (beyond sports medicine anyway). Again, awful videos were the primary focus.

Once I got into high school, the quality of lessons increased dramatically. The health teacher I had was wonderful and also brought in several guest speakers. The sex ed seminars that I helped conduct in college were led by nurses and other health professionals. The seminar I had as part of my last job (yes it was required as part of training; it was a residential program of mixed-gender teams with people who had varying backgrounds including homeschooling and public schooling that did not have sex ed curricula) was conducted by educators from Planned Parenthood. I even tried to opt out of the last one on the basis that I was married and thus didn't need it, but my unit leader said no and I went anyway and still enjoyed it (didn't learn anything, but I helped answer a lot of questions my teammates and friends had about some of the stuff covered in the training).

The good news is that you have the ability to impact this issue more than most. Whatever ludicrous laws get proposed at the state level are one thing, but most of this stuff is controlled by local school boards. You can run for yours if you want, or just try to get out the vote among like minds. Turnout in local elections is very low and often skews elderly and Republican, so there's a lot of room for improvement. It's probably the most bang you can get for your activism buck.

Alright, HHR, I'm going to extend the olive branch one more time because that's the kind of person I am, and I am going to get pretty damn personal this time, so please hear me out.

I don't mind if you prefer practising abstinence over testing the waters. I don't mind if you encourage your children to wait until they meet what they consider to be the right person before they have sex. I don't mind if you tell them to wait until marriage before they have sex.

Because you know what? That is a legitimate way of life. It is. Look at me: I practise abstinence. Yes, really. I am still a virgin and I feel no shame over admitting this, but at the same time, I don't feel shame over discussing sex. I am also completely uninterested in ever having sex or a romantic relationship or on getting married, so there's that as well.

Now, what I'm asking for is comprehensive sex ed classes. What constitutes comprehensive sex ed classes? Reread the thread calmly while putting aside your opinion, and you'll see numerous examples. I also mentioned that I'm okay with sex ed classes mentioning numerous approaches to sex, but I flat out refuse for them to promote one over the other.

No one ever told me practising abstinence was the correct way to go around these things, nor was I told I would be in the wrong if I didn't do things that way. Has that prevented me from practising abstinence? No, if anything, it told me that the best method would be for me to pick what I was comfortable with, and this is what I'm comfortable with, but for someone else, it might not be.

Again, let me stress that not everyone will approach sex the same way. Some people want to test the waters first. Some people never want to have sex. Some people only want one partner. You want to know what all these people have in common? The fact they need to learn about sex.

Why is this important, you ask? Because with the gained knowledge, people can make appropriate decisions and assess situations more effectively. Would you give someone a construction hat and boots and ask them to take control of a crane without training them before hand, without informing them of what it is they're working on, without them feeling ready and comfortable to manipulate that machine?

If you answered no, congratulations, you picked the proper answer. If you picked yes, let's look at the potential consequences that could arise:

• Harming themselves or others around them
• Damaging the tools, machines and materials needed to build whatever it is that's being worked on
• Potentially killing someone
• Numerous other consequences but the top three are really the most important and obvious

Now, bringing this back to sex ed classes: The purpose is to inform. The purpose is to provide the next generation with the tools and knowledge they need to make the right decisions for themselves. Essentially, we are giving them a map so that they can find their way through that particular aspect of life safely.

Now, there are many ways to get through life, in the same way there's generally more than one way to get to a destination. In the context of sex, some people approach it via abstinence. That's okay. Does that necessarily make it the correct way? No. Is it the one you want to encourage your children to adopt? From what you told me, yes, so I say tell them so.

But don't try telling everyone else that that's the only correct path, because then you're being obnoxious.

So now, let me ask you a question, and the way you answer this is pivotal, because it will determine whether or not we can continue this conversation:

Putting aside your opinions on monogamy and abstinence, do you think we should teach the next generation about sex in and of itself?

If you disagree with me, that's fine, but please explain to me why. If it has to do with the abstinence/monogamy thing, please explain to me why you think the two are so closely linked, because I fail to see the connection. If you're going to start going on about your religious views in regards to monogamy, I'm not going to answer you here, I'll go make that monogamy thread, I'll link to it here, and we'll continue that conversation there.

In which I write things for my own edification, as HHR disdains to reply to me. Still waiting on an answer about that sinful historical culture stuff, buddy, since you dropped that like a hot potato once you realized you were going to get hammered on it.

The verse is directly addressing how the king of Israel should live; if, as I see below in the criticisms of Luther, you believe in a separation or hierarchy between the congregation in the leadership, I fail to see how this applies to anyone other than the rightful king of Israel, as you've got to be one of the tribes to be their king. Or, if we do take it as true, "do not accumulate wealth and silver" is right next to it. Remind me again about the GDP of Vatican City?

And in this verse, Jesus deliberately refuses to give a direct answer. You can't handwave this away under the new covenant, as in other verses divorce is deliberately allowed in cases of abuse, so perhaps we should approach this with a little less surety than "CLEARLY, he is against divorce." Personally, my opinion is that while the covenant may have changed, we have not - we are functionally and sinfully the same as the Jews with hard hearts. From a practical point of view, everything I've heard about marriage in the church has been about a couple setting down and choosing to do the hard work of making a marriage work. Forcing people to make that choice doesn't work. Just like you can't force people to become christian.

This passage is entitled "The Preeminence of Christ." Let's look at another one in the same manner, from Hebrews 7:

And another:

The human priesthood is over. Politicizing gay marriage, funding creationist museums, and spending money on anti-abortion posters are SINS. There is no love in the republican party. Your campaign contributions will not bring you any closer to God. If you really, believe in a God that is all-powerful and works all things to good, then why do you waste yourself on these fruitless causes? They will either flourish or wither, and the only thing you'll be judged on at the end is whether you produced good fruit. Me, I'm going to go help some poor, sick and orphans, and if some of them are gay, then so much the better, because they've been denied the love of Christ because of people like you. Shame on you.

That website is fucking embarrassing. Where it doesn't distort his views, it misses the point altogether, and there is a disturbing lack of humility, honesty, or historiography about the awful, awful things the Catholic church was doing back then. I've read better criticisms of Luther from 500 years ago. Get your shit together, man.

I think, at this point, you should realize that I'm not a flaming liberal gay atheist sodomist. I have the same grounding you do, HHR, except I took it in a very different direction. So before you write me off and ignore me again, stop and think about how I could read the bible and think the things I do. Because I don't think you've thought at all.

In case no one noticed from my raving tirades about education, I've been pretty close to the ground for a while. I've spent lot of time volunteering in a certain electorally infamous Florida county where my ex and her mother are both teachers. I've seen the politics up close and personal and my mindset has gone from one of fervent activism to the slow acknowledgement of a lost cause. I'm not just a misanthrope for my health!

My question was a tangent. I agree that religious belief has no place in legislation; I just wanted to understand the reasoning for why some parts of the Old Testament are discarded and not others. (I still don't, waiting for another reply.)

To be honest, engaging with folks like HHR on any terms is probably the only further discourse we could make on this subject because it's his very mindset that's the soul of the problem. I was in full-on "don't feed the troll" mode until I started to acknowledge that. I don't see anyone arguing against sex education on anything other than a static theological precept, so religion is going to be at the forefront of the discussion whether we like it or not.

You are awful literal. That worries me for several reasons. Do you believe that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally? Also what version of the Bible are you reading because there are subtle editorial decisions made in translations. I'm going with King James because.

You're totally divorcing these passages from any kind of context. If the Lord said to his dog walker:
1. Take the dog around twice
2. Never let him chase cats
3. Take water with you everywhere you go
4. for the dog may get thirsty
Would you quote "Dog Walker 1:3" as evidence that Jesus wants us all to be well hydrated?

Because these passages refer to what should go into choosing a ruler for Israel. I mean it says so right there. And it says, in the excises 18-20, that these laws should apply to him only so that he never get all uppity and start feeling like he's better than his subjects. It's an entire passage that says "The king you choose shouldn't be greedy, with gold or wives" and you turn it into a weirdly specific, oddly edited, rant against polygamy.

Hoooooooooo boy!
The best part is that this section was clearly written to retcon earlier passages that allowed divorce. It even specifically name drops Moses who God had given commandments on divorce in an earlier passage.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Either god changes his mind or Moses was just making shit up. UNTIL the retcon, in which case God was all "No, I was ok with it then because...society wasn't ready for there NOT to be divorce. But it totally is now. Also slavery."

It is laughably the most transparent part of the Bible not containing dragons and really is a perfect excuse for why the Catholic church hates things until they don't if they're supposed to spread the wisdom of the all knowing and all loving creator of the universe: society is just not ready to advance. Until it has advanced. Then it will be. In which case they'll go along with it. Until then they'll fight it tooth and nail. For our own good.

Huh?

I think he's saying that since a gay marriage is a ceremony we can disregard any biblical passages that talk about homosexuality being a sin and thereby allow it; a good cartoon.

I'm debating whether I should give up hope or set up a new thread because this conversation is actually interesting and informative, just not about sex ed.

And thus, a question: Why do people think sex ed needs to be so closely linked to religious views and what they believe a romantic relationship should be like? You can be in a romantic relationship without sex in much the same way you can have sex without being in a romantic relationship, but it doesn't take away the importance of being prepared if you're ever faced with it. (General you being used, here.)

I mean, seriously, point me out where in the Bible it says "Thou shall not teach thy children about intercourse." If there's a basis for it in your religious beliefs, then I can start understanding where you're coming from. Until then, all I'm seeing is misplaced anger and you indirectly shaming people for having sex. (You being HHR, if that wasn't clear.)