Though, I also think parents need to be able to opt out of any sex ed classes as long as they pledge to talk to their kids about it themselves. Parents need to have a say in this because it’s not about empirical information as most classes are, but about lifestyle, and parents have the right to choose what kind of lifestyle they want their children to learn from a young age.

I’ve heard this accusation about the Right legislating morality a lot from the Left, and to me it’s an oversimplification that doesn’t do justice to the conservative point of view. The reason many are anti-abortion is because they think that logically a child inside the womb is still human and so should be protected by the law like the rest of us. It’s not more legislating morality than it is to have a law against murdering someone, because that’s what abortion is to a large amount of people.

Additionally the Right’s attempt to pass laws against gay marriage is usually a reaction to the Left’s redefining marriage. Homosexuals can have the same rights as heterosexuals without redefining marriage to fit their agenda. Though there may be many on the right who don’t think homosexuals should have the rights of a married a couple, I have a problem with that because I think that is legislating morality. But it also doesn’t make sense to say that a homosexual relationship is the same as a heterosexual one. Men and women are different.

I guess as far as the near obsession of Christianity with sex thing, I just haven’t seen it. Most Christians I know take issues as they come, I haven’t seen a lot of dwelling solely on the sex issues. I think I see your point, though, in the way that Christians spend so much time crusading against abortion and gay marriage to the neglect of other important issues. But those things certainly are important issues too and I think much of Christianity’s “obsession” with them is simply a reaction to the secular humanist’s constantly advancing these issues and trying to shove them down Christians’ collective throat.

It is the secular humanists who keep expanding abortion rights to the point where they trying to make the taxpayer funded, for instance, and who are constantly trying to force us to recognize their redefinition of marriage. To Christians who interpret “thou shalt not kill” to extend to babies within the womb as well as without, and who read homosexuality listed in the Bible as a form of sexual perversion, there is a need to take a stand and not simply go along with secular doctrines they believe are against the Bible.

On the other hand Christianity does have a long history of being sexually repressive, as Kirk pointed out, from celibate priests to outlawing contraception. These kinds of extremes are certainly wrong, and something we should be careful to guard against.

I think I’m understanding better what you mean by a “nuanced” approach to sexuality. It’s not that there aren’t clear Biblical principles, but that the application of these principles is a complicated matter and various between individuals. Purity pledges may work for some people, not for others; each person needs to figure out for themselves how to live a life that is pure for God. If that’s what you mean I’m with you.

Judge not lest ye be judged. I get kind of hot under the color when I see well meaning Christians go so far in the direction of being accepting of those who have fallen that they are disdainful of those who actually try to pick themselves up and live according Biblical principles. Do we not believe in forgiveness AND sanctification? Do we not believe that it is possible to live a pure life? What is wrong with publicly renouncing sin and pledging to go and sin no more?

Sure, it may very well be that Bristol made her move for her own personal gain (or to make life easier for her mother), but maybe she is genuine and she really just wants to be a good example and a voice of experience to other teens who are struggling with the same issues. That would be a noble motive in my view. So we just don’t know what’s in her heart, therefore we shouldn’t judge.

As for the Church staying away from issues of sexuality and focusing exclusively on helping the poor: if the Bible has something to say about it, the church has something to say about it. The Bible has a lot to say about adultery, homosexuality, fornication, and life, therefore I think the Church definitely should not be silent. According to the Bible adultery is a sin (and not only that, as David pointed out, it’s extremely dangerous), so it’s absolutely right for the Church to exhort young people to abstinence. And those who fail should be able to count on God’s grace to give them a second chance: “I will remember their sins no more” (provided they understand, as Culturmutt pointed out, that forgiveness doesn’t mean absolution from consequences such as STDs).

In our culture of tolerance we often demonize the so-called Religious Right for being too intolerant, but we need to be careful that we don’t go to the extreme of being intolerant of intolerance (a self-hating position if there ever was one). According to the Bible we are to love sinners but hate sin. So a nuanced approach is appropriate when dealing with people and their specific situation, but when it comes to the underlying principles there is little room for nuance, the Bible is clear about what is right and what is wrong.