Invitations to look, feel, act and be "sexy" abound for today's teens. The youth of the 21st century are a seemingly sophisticated group who know "what's hot and what's not." In addition, formal instruction on preventing unwanted pregnancy and reducing the risk of sexually transmitted disease is a well-established part of our American society and culture today. One might conclude that there has never been a more enlightened and educated generation of young people--a generation prepared for success in dealing with human sexuality and relationships.
However, a 2006 study prepared for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy suggests otherwise: "Teens are street savvy about the attractions of sex and school-smart about its perils but increasingly uninformed or misinformed about the steps to building healthy relationships, now and in the future."
The report, "Making a Love Connection: Teen Relationships, Pregnancy, and Marriage" (Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and Marline Pearson), addresses the increasingly prolonged passage from adolescence to adulthood, a path on which young people are bombarded with unrelenting sexual messages.
The authors present a compelling case for a change in the current approach and curriculum for sex education: "The U.S. has made remarkable progress in reducing teen pregnancy and birth rates over the past decade--teen pregnancy is down 28 percent and teen birth rates have declined by one-third. Yet more needs to be done. Too many teens are still getting pregnant and becoming young parents. One in three girls still become pregnant by age 20 and half of all first out-of-wedlock births are to teenagers. One out of five teen births are repeat births. Such high levels of teen pregnancy not only disrupt the lives of teens themselves; they also contribute to the persistence of maternal and child poverty, father absence and diminished life prospects for the children who are born to teenagers."
Are we overlooking something in society and culture
when preparing our young people for family and relationships? Is there a missing dimension in modern sex education programs? Have we unwittingly and unwisely established a pattern of teaching youths the subject of sex while neglecting to teach them about relationships?
Current sex education curricula emphasize "health-based" messages offering instruction in individual personal safety from disease and pregnancy, either through abstinence or contraception. Rarely are students given guidance on how to achieve and maintain responsible and respectful relationships. Authors Whitehead and Pearson argue convincingly that, in addition to teaching teens what to avoid, we need to teach them what to aim for in a fulfilling relationship. They suggest a shift in emphasis to a "hope-based" strategy that appeals to their aspirations for success in marriage and family life.
Surveys of high school seniors indicate that the vast majority believe marriage is extremely important and that they will marry in the future. Simultaneously, statistics provided by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy indicate that two-thirds of teens think it's okay to have sex with someone for whom they have strong affection, or to live with someone outside of marriage. And nearly 60 percent of 15- to 17-year-old girls and 73 percent of those aged 18 to 19 approve of unwed childbearing.
Although teens surveyed continue to express a desire for success in marriage, they hold views and behave in ways that hinder their ability to achieve it. Whitehead and Pearson lament that many teens remain clueless about overwhelming evidence regarding the economic and social benefits of a low-conflict and long-lasting marriage: "This body of evidence has been widely disseminated in the academic and policy world for more than a decade but it has not reached many of the nation's classrooms or kitchen tables. Indeed, many teens hold attitudes that are directly at odds with the social science evidence."
Because of the casualness of contemporary sexual encounters, young people have come to see sexual activity as entertainment for "players" who participate at their own risk. Sex, in this context, is simply the pursuit of pleasure and lacks any larger purpose or meaning. According to Whitehead and Pearson, "for many teens puppy love hasn't disappeared. It's been sexualized." Unfortunately, this leaves them unaware of the profound purpose of sex in solidifying loving and lasting family relationships.
The report advocates "relationship education" to fill the existing knowledge gap. It recommends teaching teens about healthy relationships and healthy marriages, and providing them with a "success sequence" for achieving their work- and family-related dreams and desires. Teens need to be given the knowledge base, practical skills and social support to help them navigate the transition from adolescence to adulthood, and parents should be engaged as first teachers.
Coincidentally, the emerging social science evidence is consistent with the Judeo-Christian ethic, which promotes sexual intimacy in the context of a committed marital relationship (Hebrews 13:4). Scripture presupposes that a man has the emotional maturity and economic means to manage the challenge of leaving his parents and cleaving to his wife (Genesis 2:24). Along with the benefits of a sexually intimate relationship in marriage comes the responsibility to provide stability and security for one's family (1 Timothy 5:8). In this sense, relationship education is not new!
Consider the potential of family and relationships, church and school working cooperatively to teach young people the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual benefits of healthy, loving marriage relationships. Without this added dimension, sex education programs simply cannot provide teens with the vital keys they need to make one of life's most important decisions.
American Society And Culture
In June 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Connecticut city's authority to appropriate private property for economic development. The court's divided (5-4) decision in Kelo v. New London declared that private landowners had no constitutional grounds to resist eminent-domain property seizures.
Eminent domain is derived from the Latin dominium eminens, meaning "supreme lordship." It identifies the inherent power assumed by a sovereign governing authority to appropriate land for public projects within a society and culture.
Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice who argued the Kelo case before the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote in the June 24, 2006, issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Since Kelo, cities have pushed out motels for commercial development and replaced small businesses with upscale hotels; bulldozed houses to make room for shopping malls. There's an even stronger and uglier trend: Towns and cities are taking modest-sized houses from their owners and handing them over to the builders of trendier, more upscale homes and condominiums (whose new owners will pay higher taxes)."
Before we rush to condemn all "condemnations," however, we should consider how they have contributed to the development of the country's infrastructure and thereby enhanced the lives of many. Airports, bridges, tunnels, railroads, interstate highways and public parks that are such an integral part of modern life simply wouldn't exist without the exercise of eminent domain. The framers of the Constitution envisioned such eventualities and provided for them in what is commonly called the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment: ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The wording defines business morality, acknowledges the ownership of private property and anticipates the need for the taking of private land for public use.
What has caused concern about the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. New London is that it has ostensibly expanded the traditional threshold for public takings from "public use," typically the building of a bridge or tunnel traveled by the general public, to a "public purpose" standard, such as economic development which subtly changes business morality. Supporters of the majority ruling suggest that expanding the interpretation of eminent domain to include economic development better equips municipalities to revive blighted neighborhoods and restore economically distressed areas.
The business morality aspect of this interpretation is questioned by those who oppose it. The fear behind the reactive furor to the ruling is that it now appears the government can take private property from one individual and make it available to another private party for the perceived purpose of adding to the local tax base.
Subsequently, several states have responded by enacting initiatives to protect the property rights of landowners.
The potential abuse of personal property seizure is not a new problem. Even in biblical history we find examples of envy and lust for land. Does a citizen who is a private landowner have the ethical and moral right to say no to an authority that envisions an allegedly better purpose for his or her land?
Consider this account from 1 Kings 21 in the Hebrew Scriptures. Naboth, a citizen of Jezreel, owned a vineyard adjacent to one of the palaces of King Ahab of Samaria, who admired the property. He offered to trade Naboth another (even better) piece of land or to pay just compensation in cash for his vineyard. However, Naboth declined the king's offer, citing his family's attachment to the land for several generations. King Ahab's wife Jezebel had Naboth falsely accused of a crime and thus discredited in the eyes of local community leaders and executed so that the king could have his herb garden.
God's servant Elijah was sent to Ahab to charge him with having "sold [himself] to do evil in the sight of the LORD" (verse 20). This example shows, contrary to a common misconception, the Judeo-Christian ethic is not critical of the concept of private property.
Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a dissenting opinion of the Kelo ruling, expressed the concern of many regarding the new standard of public purpose: "Whatever the reason for a given condemnation, the effect is the same from the constitutional perspective--private property is forcibly relinquished to new private ownership. . . . The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory"
The people of any href="http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/overview.aspx'id=83">society and culturehave the moral and ethical right to own their private property and be free from fear that eminent domain will be abused.
-- -- has sinced written about articles on various topics from . Author, Thomas Fitzpatrick contributes articles on society and culture for Vision Media. For more information on these and other topics, please visithttp://www.vision.org.. -- --'s top article . Bookmark -- -- to your Favourites.
Best Disc Golf Discs Dont you think it is time to add to your collection of wooden keepsake boxes, childrens jewelry boxes, wooden music boxes, ballerina music boxes, and music trinket boxes