Gaz,
I don’t wish to be negative regarding your understanding, truly.
Presently, there are more than 1,000 denominations and groups organized which call themselves Christian.
Each of those groups tend to promote the dogma that their Christianity and their morality is right as opposed to any (and all) others who disagree with them. Please take time to access the following:
Families of Christian denominations in North America
If you will scroll down, you can see a few of the many groups on the opening page.
Each of these various groups (of which you appear to be a member of one) perpetuate their own religious doctrines and dogmas. They use selected texts from generally ancient scripts, holding them up as absolutes and their own interpretations as absolutely right.
When we recognize historic evolution of religious notions, we recognize they do not agree today and that they developed over time. They did not agree from the earliest emergence of religion from superstition.
The most significant singular schism for Protestants (those who protest) is that of 1517 A.D. following Martin Luther’s religious challenges on moral issues and issues of doctrine (which are really moral issues). Luther’s protest led to the Protestant Reformation. On the link I provided above, there is a very brief description of significant changes which emerged from the first century of Christian evolution to the many faces of that religion we know today.
Most religious dogma tends to be simplistic and relies on truth by assertion. That’s a rather large concept to understand and recognize. Most religious pundits (such as you appear to be) do not recognize that other pundits equally rely on truth by assertion as the primary method to persuade and manipulate their members or those they wish to control.
They tend to rely on bombast, claim, and fear to manipulate and control others.
So, like you, they make absolute claims and select ancient scripts to assert that their view is the right view. Further, anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, immoral, and even to be avoided. Religion is inherently intolerant of other religious views and other thoughtful conclusions.
I asked you (as did Shades) thoughtful and thought provoking questions. They cannot be reduced to the cartoon of a baseball field or to scripts of dogma.
With regard to the questions we asked, a moral thing to do is provide everyone, but particularly young people with as much information as we can about any area of interest or concern. Sex education is surely an education which has been greatly neglected. And telling youth: “Just say No” is not education. It also does not work.
The question then becomes how do we inform in such a way as to produce benefit in both the short term and the long term. I think you would agree it’s not in the interest of civilized culture to have unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children. It seems to me a worthy moral goal is to avert unwanted pregnancy and children. It’s more important than attempting to prevent all sexual gratification. Of course homosexual contacts don’t produce unwanted children in themselves nor does masturbation.
Evidence strongly tells us that humans are capable of sexual stimulation (by age). It is going to happen. Some have suggested that we ought to advise those becoming sexually ready and able to achieve an orgasm about safe masturbation activity and inform them that their urges are normal and natural. Those who suggest that consider it superior morally to attempting to make young people deny their own sexuality. Surely masturbation to sexual gratification is superior to rape of another person or even to consensual sex when an unwanted pregnancy is most likely.
To argue no sex until marriage argues for that which never was and will not be. If a couple marries at 21 to 25, they have been sexually active long before that. What then is the best way, the right way for parents of maturing youth to address sexuality? It seems to me that honest, truthful education is the best. A baseball cartoon/caricature or religious pontification is not the best way to address emerging sexuality in children growing into youth. When children ask questions, we adults as parents have a moral obligation to be truthful with them. That means more than “just say no” as answer to questions about sex. It means we have a moral responsibility to teach and to give as much information as is required at any given point in the maturation of a young person.
That does not mean saying nothing or giving way too much information too early. But if a child of any age begins to ask questions or gives other indication that he/she is thinking about sex and sexual responses, we parents have moral obligation to address that child in an informed, rational, non-judgmental way. It’s likely to produce the best result. Of course we ought to be doing that with all questions which have nothing to do with sex. If we do, when issues of sexual content arise, we (as a parent adult) already have established a relationship of trust and respect to be an influence for good.
While I am answering some of the questions I posed for you, it’s certainly not as comprehensive as a real-life situation might demand. Religious dogma is a poor substitute for genuine information in any area. As you can see from the link I gave you, there are more than 1,000 religious groups which regard themselves as Christian and some even regard themselves as the only true Christianity. Historically, we know much about the many changes in religious perspective and historical details about many of them.
Incidentally, I also think we should take a similar approach in informing young people about religious groups. What are central doctrines and beliefs held by Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Amish, Brethren, Mormons, etc. Of course, I’m not suggesting that we could possibly cover every religious group in such education. But, we could make clear points of contrast, similarity, and outright disagreement among religious dogmas and doctrines. At the same time, we ought to be preparing youth in math and science. There is much more consensus in math and science than in the myths of religion. In addition, math and science point the way to consensus conclusions that are most important and most useful. The computers we are using (our common denominator here) are an example of applied science about which there is overwhelming consensus.
To inform and educate is surely a moral obligation.