“Perhaps you are addressing someone who was not a practicer as well as a non-believer.”
If that’s what they want to teach their kids, fine. They pretty much don’t have to do anything at all and their kids will end up promiscuous, by nature. So all the abstinence education in the world by the State won’t undermine their teachings. That is, their parental teaching and the natural promiscuity of humans work nicely together.
OTOH, deferring instant gratification by abstinence is not natural for teens. If parents teach abstinence and the State teaches promiscuity with condoms, the State will win that battle more often than not because they are telling the kids to go for the instant gratification, which is what they want anyway.
In other words, if the promiscuity advocates are wrong but get to control teaching, much damage is done. If the abstinence advocates are wrong and get to control teaching, the other set of parents can surely get their kids to engage in premarital sex with little difficulty. So little damage is done.
As most parents want abstinence, I don’t see why the State should be undermining their teaching. Our ruling class, though, really doesn’t care what most parents want. They are the descendants of Kinsey, Hefner et al and think that sexual expression is a great thing in almost any context not involving force or violence. So they will force this down the majority’s throat, regardless, because they know better than stupid middle class people.
[quote]
which is what they want anyway.
[/quote]
The most effective education tests all assumptions. Including this one.
Is this what people really want? Or would they be happier with a husband or a wife who truly loves them and they feel they have to play this game or they will be alone all their life?
You want to have effective education point out how promiscuity damages people prior to marriage, and makes it less not more likely that you will get what you want.