I may be in the minority, but I’m still shocked to hear that a high school kid has given birth. It also bothers me that other people, like the woman in my department, don’t seem to think anything is out of the ordinary. Why should I be surprised? After all, there were several pregnancies during my sophomore year in high school, and that was WAY back in 1992-93. Maybe at this point I’m supposed to have accepted that teenage pregnancy is a part of our culture. I’m sure that there are teenagers that have had children and were still able to be successful, but at what cost? How can you explain limited choices to someone who has apparently failed their first attempt at an adult decision? It may appear that the space between a high school kid and a young adult in their early twenties is narrow, but the difference in maturity is often very wide. This is an army of spoiled mallrats, not the teenagers of your grandparent’s generation.

I think that abstinence-only programs do a disservice to young people. That’s not to say that I don’t support the practice of abstinence for teenagers, but only that I’m aware that the reality of personal relationships rarely figures into sex education. In what other field is giving out “too much information” so often cited as the “real” cause of the problem? In my experience (and probably yours), complex decisions are easier to make as knowledge increases. Certainly I make bad decisions sometimes (and feign ignorance), but that has little to do with a lack of understanding or the availability of information.

Those that believe that handing out condoms encourages sexual behavior are not far removed from those that believe gay marriage opens the door to bestiality. There just isn’t a connection. Preventative education is a much better option than being forced to decide the best way out of a bad situation. By all means, encourage your kids to come to you while you can still make a difference. If you’ve demonized anything short of abstinence, and set yourself up as unreceptive to discussion, what are the chances your children will turn to you for help before it’s too late?

There are also parallels in youth drug education. Why does most literature insist on lumping all illegal drugs together as “BAD”? Don’t get me wrong, I think that drugs are bad, but for a variety of reasons directly related to the effects of each drug. There appears to be little benefit to making blanket statements that by their very nature are more likely to be called into question. It might be time to differentiate between softer drugs like marijuana, and the more lethal varieties, that include cocaine and heroin. When your kids find out the difference (and they will), you risk a complete loss of credibility.

It’s controversial, but take abortion as an example. I recently read a letter to the editor where the writer took exception to the notion that a woman’s right to choose is more important than the unborn child’s right to life. They went on to explain that the opposition only had the “right to choose” argument to fall back on when presented with the “facts” about the rights of an unborn child.

The problem is that the pro-choice side of this argument didn’t stipulate to any of the “facts” that the opposition presented, and actually based their arguments on a completely separate set of “facts”.

If you argued that the speed limit on major highways should be 100 miles per hour because driving at high speeds is safer and all roads are straight, then I could make a valid argument that high speeds are not safe, regardless of the nature of the road. But what if I attempted to discredit your argument about the safety of high speed driving by providing evidence that the roads are more curved than you believe them to be? Could I reasonably claim that your position has been invalidated because you didn’t take my evidence about the road into account? Would my argument be more definitive because I filtered it through my own set of facts?

Studies have shown that spanking leads to a drastic increase in hostility, aggression, and overall misbehavior. It teaches the lesson that hitting is an acceptable way to solve problems. Spanking is often caused by frustration or rage, and it fails to teach children alternative forms of behavior. What lesson do you hope to impart? “I hurt you because I don’t want you hurt?”

Spanking interferes with the development of trust and good communication, and prevents children from learning how to resolve conflict effectively. Fear is not an effective parenting tool. Don’t confuse fear with respect. Some parents claim to follow a “controlled spank” with a quick hug. Interesting. So, I hurt you, but I love you. Now that’s a mixed message every child can comprehend.

Corporal punishment is not an effective long-term solution. Ask my mother. Spanking rarely brings about an end to misbehavior. Or maybe it does work, and the behavior is temporarily stopped. What is the cost down the road? Does anybody think that angry teenagers just wake up one morning and decide to be angry? Human beings are shaped by their environment, and interactions within that environment. Few people have the impact of a parent on the development of a child.

Some people like to say, “I was spanked and I turned out okay.” The “I rule”. If I went through something, and I turned out okay, then I must be the norm. Right? Of course. Pay no attention to studies, surveys, reports, etc. It doesn’t matter that the American Academy of Pediatrics opposes corporal punishment. I am okay.

Many parents repeat the methods they learned as children. It’s difficult to break out of a cycle of punishment if you never learned alternative methods. I think that we forget who we were as children as we age. As adults, we either learn from the mistakes of our parents, or we become our parents.

There are no perfect solutions. Discipline requires a great deal of patience. The causes of misbehavior must be investigated, rather than simply punishing the results. Prevention is the key. For the parent, it means an investment of time and energy working towards doing what is right, rather than what is easy.

The nuclear family is dead. No law or tax break is going to bring it back. Society has changed, and alternative family situations must be considered viable options for providing loving homes.

Recent studies have shown that there is no difference in child rearing ability between same sex and “traditional” couples, and that same sex couples are just as capable of providing stability for a child.

I believe that children are born with a predilection towards being heterosexual or homosexual. The environment in which they are raised does not determine their sexuality.

Homophobic discrimination is wrong. We do not restrict adoption based on other factors, such as race. Laws that exclude gays only exacerbate existing prejudice, and guarantee a continuation of the cycle of bigotry.

Those that hide behind the notion that children of gay couples will be persecuted do a disservice to societal progress. Should we have postponed school integration until everyone felt comfortable with it?