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?"

[GoLightly]

What makes anyone think that it's the government's job to fix problems with society's morals? Or sexual behavior? Or what have you?

Our government has been trying to do it since our founding Actually, before our founding & since we kept English Law as part of our system, it was a continuation instead of something new. Heck, we fought a civil war about a moral issue. During most of our history, it was handled by the state level. Federal courts pushed the states out of the business as much as they were able. Once paying for the results of sexual behavior became something handled by the Feds, sexuality became a Federal issue.

Devolve education back to the local level, sex education goes back to being under local control.

I'm sure the author of this article would prefer those 50 million in tax dollars paid for condoms on fruit type of sex ed, over the type that's in this expenditure.

[yield 2 the right]

Rush Limbaugh now discussing this as of this post's time.....

[Stone Mountain]

The words I do cause a woman to not want sex anymore. They already have what they want why perform anymore.

So you are saying that women don't want sex, they just want what they can get by "performing" until they get married?

[BibChr]

Done.

[yield 2 the right]

I am a male and 32 and yet have to find right/wrong woman to ruin my life with j/k to all nice lady Free-Peers out there ;>)

[timm22]

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.

Amen. Calling for more government intervention to correct the last government intervention is only going to lead to more intervention later down the road. Eventually, you'll get to the point where nearly every aspect of your life is regulated by the state in some way.

And it may not be "your side" making the rules. Better to just get the government out of everything but its most essential tasks.

[Stone Mountain]

If you're unmarried and having sexual intercourse, you're doing something stupid.

Nope. Sorry, but thanks for playing. If you don't want to have sex before marriage, don't have it. That doesn't make me stupid for having it. It's enhanced my life and I have experienced no down side. Sorry if that doesn't comport into your beliefs in sex.

[tacticalogic]

What provision of the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to spend $50 million on an Abstinence Education Program?

None of them.

[jjm2111]

I love how some "conservatives" favor big government as long as it's forcing their concept of morality.

[jjm2111]

"They aren't mandating it. They are just spending $50 million to persuade you."

Well, that's just brilliant.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be spent on any of that other stuff either. A laundry list of inappropriate expenditures of taxpayer dollars is hardly justification for adding yet another one to the list.

[durasell]

I love how some "conservatives" favor big government as long as it's forcing their concept of morality.




And yet my campaign to have the government finance a movement against so-called "easy listening" radio stations has not gained traction.

[timm22]

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.

Does this also mean there is no right to persuade others to join the wrong religion? No right to disrespect one's elders? No right to be slothful, gluttonous, or immorally proud?

What criterion do we use to determine if something is "morally evil"?

[You Dirty Rats]

What's hilarious about this program is that people actually think a government ad on this topic will affect anyone's behavior.

A complete and utter waste of $50,000,000.

Perhaps the Federal Government would be better advised to amend the tax code so that there isn't a financial incentive for a couple to avoid marriage.

[Stone Mountain]

What criterion do we use to determine if something is "morally evil"?

Not sure. But I do know one thing - the government certainly isn't capable of making the decision.

[blowfish]

I love how some "conservatives" favor big government as long as it's forcing their concept of morality.

Of course! Just like their definition of "pork" is "government expenditures outside of my district".

[You Dirty Rats]

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.

In other words, the way to avoid tyranny is to establish your personal view of morality. I'll pass.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[darkangel82]

hose...roflmao....Freudian slip perhaps?

[balch3]

don't just take my word for it.
http://couragerc.net/PIPMasturbation.html