Federal Grants for Teaching No Sex til Marriage

[dawninthemorning]

I have written about the legalization and taxation of marijuana. My point always seems to be that there is money to be made, and considering how much the government wastes, you would think that marijuana would be the quickest and easiest way to do it. That brings me to this next topic....the hundreds of millions of dollars the government has spent on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Per the news story that I have read on AOL and MSN, 9 out of 10 people have engaged in premarital sex. I am not going to go into all of the statistics, if you want to know them you can go and read them. My concern is obviously that the money that is being spent on these programs is being absolutely wasted (that would be putting it mildly). Instead of spending this money on telling people between the ages of 12-29 not to have sex, maybe they should be spending that money on education on how to protect themselves against teenage pregnancies and diseases. Or better yet, not only teach them safe sex, but spend half of that money on teaching kids on how to balance a check book and financial responsibility in the real world so we don't have so many repos and high interest loans and people in low income neighborhoods being taken advantage of by mortgage companies.

Oh wait, I am wanting our government to be in charge of a program that teaches financial responsibilty? Maybe they should just stick to safe sex....

[harris7]

It's more like 99/100 people engage in premarital sex.

in canadian Universities we look at The US's approach on sex ed. It is ridiculous. I dont think anyone down there even claims their approach is based on research. probably because it's so obviously based on morality.

Its really shameful that programs themselves are fully of blatant lies and have been proven to bring more harm than good. People are going to have sex, that’s just how it is. Since the US gov. wont accept that and teach people how to be safe, these programs are having a very negative effect on the health and well being of the youth.

It’s very troubling.

[medicinal]

Your federal dollars in action. How can a guy (BUSH) kill almost a million people and then tell us to stop fucking because it's immoral. This would be funny if it wasn't true! Unfuckingbelievable!

[andruejaysin]

Funny how "conservatives" claim to favor small goverment, while wanting the government to micro-manage every aspect of our lives.

[Fengzi]

Neo-conservatives act just like the Democrats did before the roles reversed (for some strange reason). They favor whatever will follow their favorite two things in life...their holy books and their pocketbooks. . :confused: :confused: When were the roles reversed?

Anyhow, the tricky thing about teaching sex in the public schools is that if you don't teach abstinence until marriage you're teaching sex before marriage. I don't agree but that's what a lot of people think. Like so many other issues facing us here in the U.S. people can only see black or white and have forgotten that's there is a million shades of grey.

[HinduKush83]

:confused: :confused: When were the roles reversed?

Anyhow, the tricky thing about teaching sex in the public schools is that if you don't teach abstinence until marriage you're teaching sex before marriage. I don't agree but that's what a lot of people think. Like so many other issues facing us here in the U.S. people can only see black or white and have forgotten that's there is a million shades of grey.Sex is something that should be taught in the home and NOT in a public school, although it doesn't work that way. The extent of sexual education should be about the physical sexual organs and how they operate, but there should certainly be no teaching of morality when it comes to sex and whether people should or should not have sex before marriage. It should be taught in the home or a private school. Canada is pretty lax about that and other people's lifestyles.

[dawninthemorning]

Not only teaching sexual organs but the different STD's. I am sorry, but I used to work in HIV/AIDS organization where I wrote grants for housing, and young teens were coming in being tested, and some were coming up positive. STD's in general is a relatively new subject, people don't talk about that. Most parents don't know enough to teach our kids about them.

When teaching our kids not to smoke cigs they show pictures of nasty lungs, when the teach about smokeless tobacco they show pictures of people missing part of their lips. We need to have a more real approach to the STD's.

[HinduKush83]

Not only teaching sexual organs but the different STD's. I am sorry, but I used to work in HIV/AIDS organization where I wrote grants for housing, and young teens were coming in being tested, and some were coming up positive. STD's in general is a relatively new subject, people don't talk about that. Most parents don't know enough to teach our kids about them.

When teaching our kids not to smoke cigs they show pictures of nasty lungs, when the teach about smokeless tobacco they show pictures of people missing part of their lips. We need to have a more real approach to the STD's.Public schools should give information on STDs and how they are caught, but they should never enforce morality and say "don't have sex or you could end up like this!". Like I said, sexual morality is for the home and private schools to take care of.

You have to sadly admit that America does like to infuse morality on its population. Bush tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage which would have marked the first time discrimination was placed in the US Constitution. I for one find that disgusting. In Canada, it is legal for homosexual marriage on a federal level. I know a lot of gay couples are coming to Canada to get married. I hope the US does not start extraditing ministers for marrying gay American couples.

[dawninthemorning]

Public schools should give information on STDs and how they are caught, but they should never enforce morality and say "don't have sex or you could end up like this!". Like I said, sexual morality is for the home and private schools to take care of.

You have to sadly admit that America does like to infuse morality on its population. Bush tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage which would have marked the first time discrimination was placed in the US Constitution. I for one find that disgusting. In Canada, it is legal for homosexual marriage on a federal level. I know a lot of gay couples are coming to Canada to get married. I hope the US does not start extraditing ministers for marrying gay American couples.

I agree with you. Live and let live. They can't in one breath say that there can be no prayer in school and then in the next teach gay marriage is wrong or that sex before marriage is wrong.

[mrdevious]

The mechanics, the biology, the STD's, these are the things that should be taught in sex-ed. The rest is up to parents to teach personal morality. I really can't agree though when people say sex ed should not be taught in schools, but by parents. Sex and sexuality is something much more complex than "this, goes into...this", and parents are not going to know every STD, pregnancy complications, ages that are dangerous to get pregnant, all the rules about the "safe" times around menstruation to have sex(there is no safe time really), etc etc etc.... What people need is education based on reality and scientific facts, not imposition of certian points of personal morality.

[harris7]

The approach Canada takes is harm reduction. People are going to have sex it’s what were biologically driven to do. Just like eating and sleeping.

The point of sex ed is to 1) teach them the basics of their biology and 2) lower any possible harm to the person and thus the society.
Harm being, pregnancy, disease and just making bad decisions and their psychological repercussions.

I also do not think it should be taught by the parents. As I would want someone to knows what their talking about teaching the topic, like maybe an expert. I believe you’ll see far more misconceptions taught by parents and a lot more bias in general

[Fengzi]

Sex is something that should be taught in the home and NOT in a public school, although it doesn't work that way. The extent of sexual education should be about the physical sexual organs and how they operate, but there should certainly be no teaching of morality when it comes to sex and whether people should or should not have sex before marriage. It should be taught in the home or a private school. Canada is pretty lax about that and other people's lifestyles.

I definitely agree that anything regarding the morality of sex be taught in the home. It is a parent's right and nobody else's, to teach their children what is right and wrong. At least about something like sex and/or religion. Although I do think that, along with teaching "about the physical sexual organs and how they operate" they should also teach about STD's and their prevention, along with birth control.

The problem that many people, especially the right wing Bible thumpers, have is that by not teaching the morality aspect, there is the implication that it isn't an issue. "If you don't teach that sex before marriage is bad, you're teaching that it is good and telling kids they should go have sex." It is an absolutely stupid way of looking at things. But, it it becomes a choice of teaching abstinence before marraige along with the science vs teaching nothing at all, it is an important enough issue that I'll take the morality too. I'll just teach my daughter what I think is right or wrong at home.

The funny thing, I went to a Catholic high school (at least for two years before I was kicked out) and, as would be expected, they taught that sex before marraige will result in an eternity of burning in hell. Ironically, or maybe not so, Catholic girls were easy. I had sex with three different girls those first two years, 5 if, unlike Clinton, you count blow jobs. Once I got into public school, however, forget it. Getting into those girls pants was like trying to get into Fort Knox. Although there was that time someone forgot to lock the door ;) Anyhow, I really can't believe that by making it more forbidden, it just made it more tempting.


Sometime during the early 1900's, Democrats began leaning more leftist and Republicans further to the right.

Ok, you know more about history than I gave you credit for. My bad. I assumed you meant something recent. It is interesting when you think that, despite all their modern day equal rights/ ACLU flag waving, it was the Southern Democrats who supported slavery.