Posted on 06/03/2002 2:05:58 PM PDT by Keyes For President
Hence the perverse service that Joycelyn Elders has performed by contributing a preface to a new book by Judith Levine, "Harmful To Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex." If you have somehow managed to believe that the institution of childhood itself is not under attack, think again. This book explicitly advocates the view that sexual activity among young people is a good thing, and that sexual relations between adults and children aren't necessarily bad. And Dr. Elders has helpfully contributed a sanitizing aura of "educational" legitimacy to sugarcoat this very real poison.
Ping.
Because he refused to sugar-coat the truth to make it more palpatable to the masses. Can he be abrupt? Yes. Can he be condescending? Yes. Is he usually right (although, not always)? Yes, again. I voted for him in the primary and I'd do it again. While I don't agree with him 100%, at least he seems to understand that to compromise means to give up something that you'd rather keep. IMHO
I asked myself the same thing in D.C. Oct 31 1998.....
You are so correct. Unfortunately to many in our country today, being "charming" is more important in a candidate than their stand on the issues or their adherance to principle.
Dr. Keyes did speak out at a time when others were conspicuously silent, didn't he?
I wonder why others didn't speak out against a popular president at that time? Most Freepers were sure glad he did. At least Keyes is consistent.
Regards,
I also voted for him in the primaries, because logic demands one vote on issues, and not personalities.
The real reason he's not POTUS is because his views are (sadly) way out of step with the average American voter.
Guess that's one of the main reasons that I like him - I'm pretty far out of step with most of the sheople, too!! LOL
Sadly, you are probably correct. Even the following excerpt, which makes all the sense in the world, is probably out of step with our culture:
It is a simple fact of human experience that the tides of passion must begin to swell before the ability to handle those passions can develop. The formation of moral character occurs crucially during the years of maturation and struggle with such passions. The proposal that young children can be beneficially "informed" about and then manage sexual practices is at best utterly morally obtuse. Whatever the "liberationists" may claim for the child, what invariably occurs is exploitation.
The first and foremost component of sex-related education must be the family itself. The first thing that children can learn and ought to learn is not about physiology, but about what it means to be a mother or a father, and the connection between moral discipline and the love and tenderness that is shared within a family.
Once children are introduced to this understanding of true family life, their attention starts naturally to focus on their assumption of that role for themselves. Then, and only then, as the formation of their moral character approaches the maturity of adulthood, it becomes appropriate and fruitful to introduce them to the mysteries of the married state.
Even sadder is when people who agree with him bash him because they don't like his personality, or the fact that he dares to speak the truth even when one of "ours" is in office.
Sexual connection with animals, same-sex, corpses, children, incest and adultery are to be severely restricted if an all-around healthy society is to exist.
It's a matter of survival.....and then some....
Yes, I love him too...
I suspect it's the fact that he can explain, at length and in detail, why unconditional support of unrestricted sexual activity is not a good thing, and libertarians and most conservatives are embarrassed to, unable to, don't want to, or just plain won't pass judgement on those who wish to... well, do things like have sex with a chain link fence if the impulse strikes. Ratcheted down, that's a logical conclusion of contemporary ethical pre-suppositions.
The family is the most basic unit in our society...morals and values should be taught there in the atmosphere of loving parents concerned with the welfare of their children....
Human beings are not rutting animals contrary to what Ediot Elders would have the world believe....and if we were, we would not have society....there would be herds and flocks.
... and trying to get people to understand this will bring forth an army of suburbanites armed with flashlights and weed-whackers instead of farmers with torches and pitchforks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.