The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early Liberal Edition
|Subject: Re: No sex for you!||Date: 3/17/2013 12:50 PM|
|Author: culcha||Number: 48429 of 85586|
The left has been enabling and often promoting sex between children for generations now. It's often a subject taught in schools.
What's "it"? Sex between children?
Are you talking about sex ed? That's something different.
A somewhat similar case exists where I teach: a state college. We teach a number of subjects: e.g., chemistry, accounting, religion, history, English, math, etc. In teaching religion, we follow the same academic approach that we follow in teaching chemistry or accounting or anything else. The point is to learn about the subject matter. A very beginning course is REL 101: Intro to Religion. But we also have more advanced courses in Judaism, the Old Testament, the New Testament, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Again, the point is the subject matter; the point is not to preach any one of these religions, or to make converts.
The phenomena of sex between children is probably taught in sociology courses (though that's pretty much of a guess on my part). But it's not "promoted"! Other social problems are also covered in sociology (and psychology, political science, etc.). In fact, I just looked in the catalogue and found a specific course -- Sociology 203 -- that is titled "Social Problems." I would guess that this course also looks at solutions to the problems -- both those that have actually been applied, and those that have only been suggested. I'm confident that the course looks for what works (or might work). So, yes, the social problems course is taught, but I really don't think it is taught with a view toward promoting social problems.
Sex with children is very common these days, and is widely approved by liberals and left wingers.
If that's true, it probably would qualify as part of the subject matter of the Social Problems course -- I mean it's a problem that we have with children who commonly engage in it and it's also a problem that we have with it being widely approved. (Perhaps this is connected to child pornography rings -- I don't know.)
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|