Govt. Tells Singles No Sex Till You're 30

ABSNews Health ^ | 10/31/06 | Brian Hartman

[steve-b]

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2006 — If you're single and in your 20s, the federal government wants you to steer clear of sex.

That's the new guidance for states under the Department of Health and Human Services' $50 million Abstinence Education Program....

"Whatever happened to conservatives that were against big government," Wagoner asks. "If this isn't a waste of taxpayer dollars, what is?"

[Antoninus]

Too much.

Really? I'd have thought a libertinarian such as yourself would advocate abolishing the Dept of H&HS altogether. What gives?

[Bluegrass Conservative]

So the govt is promoting a healthy lifestyle--is that a bad thing???

I can think of 50 million reasons it is a bad thing.

[discostu]

So basically you're defending one illegitimate use of taxpayer dollars by listing some other illegitimate uses of taxpayer dollars that might be reduced by it. I've got a better idea, end welfare, that gets rid of the entire illegitimate use of taxpayer dollars without creating a replacement.

[durasell]

If you're getting sex advice from the government you have larger issues than sex.

(And no, throwing money at the problem and creating a giant bureaucracy won't help you)

[tacticalogic]

In absolute terms, I suppose they never did. Is that the argument, that allowing any justifies all?

[Antoninus]

Man's rights are man's rights, the role of government is simply to protect them and to leave morality to men.

No, you're confused. Man's rights descend from Natural Law as ordained by God. There is no right to act in a way that's morally evil. No right to abortion. No right to sodomy. No right to adultery. No right to pornography. A government that protects such false "rights" is one that does great harm to its citizens and which will eventually become overtly tyrannical. An immoral or amoral republic can not exist for any great length of time before devolving into tyranny.

The American Republic was not founded with a morally relativistic Constitution. It was founded upon Natural Law and if that is taken away, I guarantee you, our republic will fall. Why do you think groups like the ACLU are so keen to undermine our public morality?

[steve-b]

Get a good job.

Millions of bureaucrats are counting on you to finance their $50,000,000 boondoggles.

Buy your own house

Good luck with that with what money you may have left after paying for the aforementioned boondoggles.

[steve-b]

There is no right to act in a way that's morally evil.

No right to steal $50,000,000 to spend on idiotic social engineering boondoggles.

[Dumb_Ox]

"Whatever happened to conservatives that were against big government," Wagoner asks. "If this isn't a waste of taxpayer dollars, what is?"

This is a selective plea for small-government. Chances are, the guy wants more government funding for birth control and sex ed.

[Antoninus]

In absolute terms, I suppose they never did. Is that the argument, that allowing any justifies all?

No. The argument is, if they insist on spending govt money on sex-ed, then force them to spend it on abstinence ed which at least has the advantage of not spreading STDs and resulting in teen pregnancy and abortion.

When and if the left starts calling for the abolition of ALL sex ed as a result of this, I'll be right there cheering them on.

[RedStateRocker]

Yep, we don *hate* the muslims, we're just jealous they get tom impose Sharia:-) /s

Government and Morality are two things that don't belong in the same sentence

[timm22]

That's the new guidance for states under the Department of Health and Human Services' $50 million Abstinence Education Program....

What provision of the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to spend $50 million on an Abstinence Education Program? For that matter, what in the Constitution authorizes the creation of a Department of Health and Human Services?

We can debate the propriety of such efforts at the state level, but I hope we can all agree that this is something the FEDERAL government shouldn't be involved in. I don't want the Feds getting involved in ANY aspect of my personal life, whether it's to teach me how to use a condemn or to persuade me to be chaste.

[Stone Mountain]

If you're single, you shouldn't be having sex even if you're in your 30's.

I shouldn't??? Thanks for your concern, but please mind your own business - worry about your own sex life and let other people worry about theirs. It's none of the government's business either.

[Antoninus]

No right to steal $50,000,000 to spend on idiotic social engineering boondoggles.

So you're against spending any taxpayer money on sex ed then, right? If so, we're on the same side, bud.

(Funny, I don't recall you posting any threads protesting the use of govt funds for birth-control or sodomy-ed. Hmmm....)

[SuzanneWeeks]

AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH

[Stone Mountain]

James Wagoner, president of a group whose top goal is a "society that views sexuality as normal and healthy," say such statistics illustrate that most people in their 20s are already having sex.

This statement sounds reasonable to me.

[durasell]

I don't want the Feds getting involved in ANY aspect of my personal life, whether it's to teach me how to use a condemn or to persuade me to be chaste.



Let's start a movement!

If sex is outlawed, only outlaws will have sex!

You will pry my genitals from my cold dead hands

Let hose who ride decide!

[durasell]

"those"

[Stone Mountain]

Anything but abstince until marriage is immoral, ineffective, and dangerous.

Your opinion. That's fine. I disagree, as do many, many others. Either way, I don't see that our government should be wasting money on it.

[Andonius_99]

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Men have the right to defend themselves; I don't dispute that, never have, never will. That is a pre-existing right, as you stated, but the role of government is to protect men's rights, not to define them or to tell men how to live their lives, whether other men approve of it or not.