Well, here's my view of how this has digressed...

Madman made his personal attacks, Sean responded. Off2 made the comment about magazines like Cosmo and the like (not American Medical Journal). Off2 viewed it as people allowing kids to read Cosmo. Off2 views those magazines as teaching people how to be whores. (I don't see it...but that's just me). So he figured, since you might allow your kids to read those, you don't care what your kids think about sex, and if they read those magazines, then they are going to be promiscuous, and think nothing of bonking whomever is standing next to you.

So if Off2 thought this, he thought that it nobody would care what their kids were doing, and in Off2's eyes, the kids would be willing participants.

Obviously, that is not what Ian and Sean meant when they said they are OK with their kids knowing about sex and knowing it's not the "dirty little secret" that seems to pervade Christianity (and Islam and plenty of other religions, I'm sure).

So yeah, now that I've thoroughly confused myself trying to type this, what Off2 said is pretty fucked up. I think I understand what he was trying to say, but it was an extreme poor choice of words.

And no, I don't have kids. If I did, I'm guessing I'd have the same reaction as everyone else has.

(Hmm...I think I'm digging myself a hole...)

Time to go to the dentist.
_________________________
"Nature has constituted utility to man the standard and test of virtue. Men living in different countries, under different circumstances, different habits and regimens, may have different utilities; the same act, therefore, may be useful and consequently virtuous in one country which is injurious and vicious in another differently circumstanced" - Thomas Jefferson, moral relativist