[bomb #21]

It's not uncommon to read in here about the liberals' agenda to indoctrinate kindergartners w/r/t homosexuality. And then there's the whole question of sex education in schools.

Saw this a couple of days go:

US lawmakers are investigating whether to cut government funding for health education programmes that promote sexual abstinence until marriage.

but I've not seen anything in here about "a report earlier this year from America's leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which revealed one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease".

$1.5bn tax dollars wasted eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7368219.stm

[linskyjack]

Of course---tell a teenager to wait until he gets married and he or she will be in the back of the car the next night. This whole abstinence nonsense is just a way for the Bushies to buy the radical right wing vote.

[LANMaster]

There's an example of liberal compassion for ya.

[linskyjack]

Liberal compassion--what's that have to do with it. Human nature trumps all your religious beliefs, and the facts are quite simple. You don't change a teenagers sexual behavior by preaching abstinenced. The only people who benefit from this policy are the bureaucrats who run the programs.

[CDATech]

Abstinence is still a word? I thought Merriam Webster removed that from the dictionary in late 1999.

Meh

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by LAN

There's an example of liberal compassion for ya.

What about the $1.5bn tax dollars, LAN?

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by CDATech

Abstinence is still a word? I thought Merriam Webster removed that from the dictionary in late 1999.

No, still there -- with "voluntary forbearance especially from indulgence of an appetite or craving or from eating some foods" as one option.

[Wiskycoo]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Liberal compassion--what's that have to do with it. Human nature trumps all your religious beliefs, and the facts are quite simple. You don't change a teenagers sexual behavior by preaching abstinenced. The only people who benefit from this policy are the bureaucrats who run the programs.

I have to agree with linksky here.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by bomb #21

What about the $1.5bn tax dollars, LAN?

Throwing money at a problem rarely improves the problem.

Liberals constantly rail to remove any form of moral teaching in the public school citing morality is a religious invention.
Then they all squat around and wonder why kids are getting pregnant earlier and earlier.

Amazing.

I don't necessarily agree with the way abstainance was being taught, because nobody is ALLOWED to say WHY morality matters.

Hint: Morality is not just doing what is right. It is about WHY it is right to be moral.


Cheers.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Liberal compassion--what's that have to do with it. Human nature trumps all your religious beliefs, and the facts are quite simple. You don't change a teenagers sexual behavior by preaching abstinenced. The only people who benefit from this policy are the bureaucrats who run the programs.

Human beings are not monkeys without the ability to reason.

The whole premise of your argument is that kids don't have a choice. They're going to hump like bunnies because they have no control ... no ethical code .... no ability to refuse.



However, I agree with you about the program failure and that it is a gross waste of money.

You know why?

Because you cannot remove the foundation of faith from underneath teaching morality, then expect morality to remain standing.

The program was doomed to failure from the start. All good intentioned, I'm sure, and probably garnered some votes away from whomever opposed the legislation, but it never stood a chance.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Because you cannot remove the foundation of faith from underneath teaching morality, then expect morality to remain standing.

The program was doomed to failure from the start. All good intentioned, I'm sure, and probably garnered some votes away from whomever opposed the legislation, but it never stood a chance.

Teach sex education at home and in the church. That way it will mean something and be properly taught.

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by LAN

Throwing money at a problem rarely improves the problem.

Liberals constantly rail to remove any form of moral teaching in the public school citing morality is a religious invention.
Then they all squat around and wonder why kids are getting pregnant earlier and earlier.

Amazing.

I don't necessarily agree with the way abstainance was being taught, because nobody is ALLOWED to say WHY morality matters.

Hint: Morality is not just doing what is right. It is about WHY it is right to be moral.


Cheers.

No, thank you.

"Liberals constantly rail to remove any form of moral teaching in the public school citing morality is a religious invention."

Really? Liberals cite morality as a religious invention? If you're talking morality, I tend to think more of religious intervention.

*searches for "Liberal" membership card, powers up shredder*

[LANMaster]

Good afternoon Bomb & Poochee.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Good afternoon Bomb & Poochee.

Hi!

[Nekochanpurr]

I think its kind of sad.. We should teach both in sex education.. abstinence and how to protect yourself. However, personally, i think its stupid on the teenagers part not to hold back.. I mean, you don't HAVE to have sex, you won't die. I wouldn't teach that you have to wait till marriage (lets face it, not everyone wants to), but wait until you are ready to be financially stable for yourself. Oh! Got knocked up? Good thing you'll be better prepared to take care of that baby. =P Moreover, i think we, in general, need to teach people to take responsibility for their actions.

...Man i love the firefox spell check.