Hwww.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/study-sexually-active-teens-suffer-more.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/study-sexually-active-teens-suffer-more.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\sck.c1ixaK[IП$ (OKtext/htmlUTF-8gzip ((J}/yWed, 31 Dec 2008 09:15:23 GMT"d535d317-f59f-44fb-a962-f2fd2b83e6af"i1Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *]K[Iv( Dakota Voice: Study: Sexually Active Teens Suffer More Depression

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Monday, September 22, 2008

Study: Sexually Active Teens Suffer More Depression

The British Daily Mail reports on a new 38-page study done using U.S. government-funded National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, based at the University of North Carolina, which found that sexually active teen girls are twice as likely to suffer from depression than those who maintain their virginity.

The study involved more than 14,000 adolescents aged between 14 and 17.

It found that having sex apparently doubled the chances of girls becoming depressed, with 19 per cent of those who had sex exhibiting major symptoms of depression, compared with 9.2 per cent who had not had sex.

Sexual anarchists in Britain are, of course, spinning as hard as possible to try and dismiss the results, stating that "American attitudes" don't necessarily apply in Great Britain.

We can continue to ignore the fact that traditional morality exists for practical reasons, and continue the mounting cost to our children and our society.

Or we can accept that we can't live as if we are soulless animals, adjust our behavior accordingly, and live much happier lives.

The choice is ours. But we don't have the option of cheating the law of consequences.


19 comments:

cp said...

Hey Bob, you left off the best part:

The study also found that the mental health of boys in the same age group did not depend on whether they were sexually active.

The emphasis on "purity" (for girls, anyway) and abstinence-only education basically leaves girls between being prissy or slutty... and their choices judged by others at every turn.

No wonder they are depressed.

Bob Ellis said...

So we should let the boys be promiscuous, then, since they don't appear to suffer any depression, right?

Honestly, Curtis, for someone who professes to be a Christian, I just don’t get you.

Christ calls us to purity, yet you defend sexual license at every turn, whether it’s heterosexual or homosexual.

I say this with the best and most heartfelt intentions: you should really take a look at your heart, compare it to God’s word and get right.

alexh2007 said...

I don't think that's what CP was saying at all, and I think you know that. Maybe you were too busy judging him for not fitting into your tidy little category of what constitutes the "right" kind of Christian.

Bob Ellis said...

Well if the girls are depressed because we are judging their sexual license, and the boys aren't depressed because we aren't judging their sexual license, then it seems a logical conclusion that (in the liberal book of logic) that if we care about the health of these boys, we should give hearty assent to their promiscuity.

Perhaps the part I missed was that, if this is the correct answer to make the boys healthy, we should also be giving hearty approval and encouragement for girls to be promiscuous, too. That way they won't be depressed anymore. Might have a few STDs and get pregnant, maybe a few abortions, but hey: no depression, right?

Oh, gee, I forgot: lots of women suffer depression after having abortions because they can't escape their conscience telling them that they killed their baby.

Perhaps we should give hearty encouragement for women to kill their children, too. Maybe we could drown out our conscience there, too.

If we repeat a lie to ourselves often enough, will we believe it? Will our conscience?

The "right" kind of Christian is one who follows Christ and obeys his teaching.

alexh2007 said...

"The 'right' kind of Christian is one who follows Christ and obeys his teaching."

I wonder what Christians 200 years ago would have thought about your refusal to own slaves. They thought their interpretation of scripture was spot-on. After all, didn't Christ say we should treat our slaves with respect? (One would think that the respectful thing would be to free them, but I guess no one thought of that till the Civil War. A pity Christ didn't tell us sooner.)

Bob Ellis said...

Most Christians 200 years ago understood that slavery was not only incompatible with the tenets of liberty upon which the United States was founded, it is incompatible with God's tenets.

You might recall that many of the founders spoke against slavery, started abolitionist movements and worked hard to rid our nation of that plague. And they did so because of their Christian faith.

You might recall that Christ's apostle Paul said there was no difference in God's eyes between slaves or free men, and that Paul called upon Philemon to free Onesimus.

Of course, there have always been those who try to justify immoral behavior Scripturally (just as some attempt to justify homosexuality today), but they have always been in the minority, and they have always been demonstrably wrong.

The kind of Christian who seeks earnestly to follow Christ understands these things.

alexh2007 said...

If slavery is incompatible with God's tenets, then why did he give the Israelites instruction upon instruction as to how they were to treat them? Wouldn't a commandment pertaining to slavery BE one of God's tenets?

Bob Ellis said...

You're making assumptions about slavery in the ancient world based on the lens of slavery in the West in recent centuries.

In the ancient world there were several forms of "slavery" ranging from the kind Americans typically think of where the slave is considered no better than a mule or even an inanimate tool, to an indentured servitude, to a servant on the order of a maid or butler.

The regulations God issued on slavery protected slaves from everything from sexual abuse to murder. Unlike man of the cultures of that day where you could rightfully lob a slaves head off if he was too slow with your drink, God protected the slave/servant of all types from abuse.

It should also be noted that because God allowed the regulation of certain things, it doesn't mean he approved of them. For instance, God allowed the regulation of divorce in the Old Testament...even though Jesus made it clear in Matthew chapter 19 that God had allowed it "because your hearts were hard," but that "from the beginning" God had disapproved of it.

Sometimes God issues regulations mitigating a sinful behavior. Why? I don't know. Perhaps he knows we are so evil that we'd do it anyway, and with certain regulations the evil is at least minimized...and perhaps the alternative would be to wipe us out in our total disobedience.

He usually gives us enough that, for people interested in following his truth in the first place, it's not hard to figure out where he's pointing us to...if we really want to know.

But getting back on topic, for someone who claims to be a Christian to advocate sexual license goes against that very claim. Somewhat understandable for someone who doesn't claim to be a Christian, but for someone who does make that claim...well, God says we can recognize the false ones by their fruit.

alexh2007 said...

"It should also be noted that because God allowed the regulation of certain things, it doesn't mean he approved of them."

It's kind of weird that God allowed and regulated slavery, yet somehow we think he'll have a problem with allowing same-sex couples to be legally recognized. Lots of people say that homosexuality is unnatural, but I think it's pretty unnatural for humans to buy and sell each other as if they were property - yet God allowed us to do it anyway. If only the Bible had been written by modern gay-rights advocates and not primitive Israelites who portrayed God as a disapproving but permissive character as a way to justify their practice of owning slaves...

But you're right, we should get back on topic. My main point was that CP didn't make any of the conclusions you accused him of making; all he did was point out a loophole in your source.

Bob Ellis said...

I don't think you'll find any regulation of homosexuality in the Bible--just outright condemnation.

And Curtis didn't point out a "loophole" in the source; he created a rabbit to chase to draw attention away from the fact that sex outside of marriage is harmful as well as immoral. Rabbits are handy critters when you want to ignore what's right.

alexh2007 said...

I know you won't find any regulation of homosexuality in the Bible; that's why I said it's weird. Weird that the god you worship seems to think that a man kissing another man is unfathomably offensive, yet a man owning another man, treating him like a piece of farm equipment, and selling him at auction isn't bad enough for him to prohibit outright - even though he had countless opportunities to do so. Instead, he not only allowed people to practice it but also gave them advice on the best way to do it! What a wonderful god he is!

Of course, it's entirely possible that all those Levitical regulations for slavery - among many other things - were actually written by man and merely attributed to a higher power. Honestly, can we really know?

Bob Ellis said...

Yes, it is interesting, isn't it?

If I had to make an educated guess, I'd say it's because as bad as slavery is, at least it isn't turning God's design for human sexuality completely upside down.

alexh2007 said...

Then please explain how slavery is consistent with God's design for humanity.

By the way, I sincerely hope you're not implying that kissing a man is worse than making him your legal property...

alexh2007 said...

While we're at it,

"You're making assumptions about slavery in the ancient world based on the lens of slavery in the West in recent centuries."

Why is it acceptable, then, to make assumptions about homosexuality in the ancient Middle East through the lens of modern Western society? They are essentially two different worlds, with vastly different attitudes toward sexuality and gender. After all, we no longer consider wives to be the property of their husbands, but that's what people believed in Biblical times.

Bob Ellis said...

Sexuality has a very fundamental and sacred quality.

For one thing, it is the actual joining of of two physical bodies together in an intimate way unlike any other form of human contact. In Genesis 2:23-24 we see that the sexual union is described as "one flesh." The writer of Proverbs describes it as one of the things " that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand." Paul also talks about this in Ephesians 5:31-33 and marvels at the "mystery" of it.

It is also the method by which God intended human reproduction to occur. While it also serves the legitimate purpose of emotional, physical and spiritual intimacy between two people, it's primary purpose remains reproduction. Reproduction can never, ever occur between two men or two women, no matter if both sets of sex organs are working at peak efficiency. Homosexual behavior is therefore a complete misuse of God's design for human sexuality and a thwarting of the reproductive purpose of our sex.

Also, homosexuality marrs and distorts the image of the relationship of Christ with the church. Ephesians 5:22-33 describes the marital relationship using Christ's relationship with his Church as an example. The relationship between the husband and wife, and the sacrificial love of Christ for his church is spoken of with the same word picture as the sacrificial love Christ has for his church. Jesus also uses this marriage language in several places throughout the gospels. The relationship of bride and bridegroom describing Christ and the church is also spoken of in Revelation, at the time when this old order of sin and death will pass away, and Christ will finally be united with his church in purity.

So, while slavery is an offense by one human being against another, homosexual behavior is a sin against one's own body and the body of another (1 Corinthians 6:18), a misuse of God's design for sexual expression and human reproduction, and a distortion of Christ's relationship with his Church.

I've explained this as seriously and reverently as I can, and I hope you won't further offend Christ with any jokes about marriage and Christ's loving relationship with his church.

Bob Ellis said...

Alex, as to your 8:47 comment:

Has murder changed over time or in different parts of the globe? It's the same at all times and in all places?

Has adultery changed over time or in different parts of the globe? It's the same at all times and in all places?

Homosexuality hasn't changed in the thousands of years it's been practiced. It is a behavior, not an institution.

It was morally condemned in both Old Testament and New Testament, and is condemned by every major religion throughout the world. It also remains as unnatural now as it was the first time it was practiced.

alexh2007 said...

If God could stand idly by and not only permit me to own a slave, but also HELP me do it by giving me regulations, somehow I doubt he cares if I'm in love with a man. If I were the creator of the universe, I'd have bigger things to worry about.

And if homosexuality is "just a behavior," what's stopping you from doing it? I'm not talking about biblical prohibitions or marriage vows or the fear of AIDS, etc. Are you sure there's no underlying disgust that keeps you from even entertaining the idea? If there is, why don't I feel the same way?

Bob Ellis said...

I know for a fact that God cares greatly whether you have sex with a man; he's said so many times, and it obviously violates his design for human sexuality.

I find tomatoes disgusting...but my son loves them. I love onions...but both my children find them disgusting.

I have a weakness for the temptation of alcohol abuse...but don't feel the slightest temptation from gambling, even though I've tried it a few times in my youth. Other people have no problem having a beer here or a glass of wine there...but get them within 2 blocks of a casino or slot machine and they're there until their bank account is empty.

Like and dislike are not a measure of morality.

alexh2007 said...

You know for a fact? Sorry, but a fact has to amount to more than "it's written in a book therefore it's true." What you have is called a hunch.

If you're keeping score, I am now a tomato who is addicted to making "salad" with an onion, and if we get married, we'll become a forged $20 bill.

 
Clicky Web Analytics