Posted on 11/01/2006 10:48:21 AM PST by 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?"
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
According to the left, it's moral to do whatever feels good or absolves you of responsibility. I disagree wholeheartedly with the assertion that one isn't responsible for their actions, but morality tells you that. The idea that government should legislate what is or isn't moral is wrong. You can't legislate morality any more than you can legislate speech. To legislate morality is to negate and dissolve the very freedom that we all enjoy.
Many on this forum warn about slippery slopes of all kinds, but tend to turn a blind eye when the person doing the legislating have an "R" next to their names. This country is about freedom, and right now, I think we need freedom from government more than anything else. People can control themselves, let them; but don't have the government try to give people a moral compass. The left tries to legislate what is moral and what isn't, is the right headed in that direction now as well?
Yeah, but not even close to all women are as you described. Be careful not to buy into that attitude too much - it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy...
Is it me, or was there a time when this was part of the Republican agenda?
I remember this too. But I'm old...
But until then if you get the opportunity to spend federal money on abstainance education, you'll take it?
The sex positive agenda seeks to end all moral judgments over sexual pairings regardless of age, sex, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
The advocates see abstinence as "unhealthy" because it is a supression of sexual desires.
The advocates wish to see everyone (even children) sexually active and do not believe in a concept of "age appropriate activity". They'll quote William Reich and claim sexuality as a birthright.
Wedding cake is the permanent ANTI-VIAGRA for most women.
From a physical statement, there is room for debate. According to my urologist, for example, "cleaning the pipes on a regular basis is important for good prostate health."
2nd, the most basic NEED is FOOD. Then protection from the elements - clothing, and shelter.
You are correct. I should have said is "one of the most basic desires."
Exactly, like it or nor Humans are a higher form of "animal", and have instincts and desires that drive them. Sure, they can probably be tamped down and fought, but sex is, and always will be, a natural act that humans are driven to. Putting a religious spin on it is what has made sex dirty, sinful, etc, unless that religion's rules for sex and intamacy are followed. Not everyone believes or follows the same idea of morality and religion, the government has no right in pushing an agenda in something as basic as sex. Just the same way that public schools have no right to push any sexual 'agenda', other than teaching the biology of it.
That's bad. Their side may be getting the numbers, for now. I think our side is getting many of the best "people of color". I seem to have found another good place to post a link to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwtobdMm4M
Ah, but I'm being bitter...no point to that. =]
The author of the article did what the left does, take an issue & present it in an emotionally charged way. From the responses in this thread, I see that it worked. I see emotion laden responses, divisions between social & libertarian conservatives.
I'm trying to get us back on track, to put this issue back into thinking from reason instead of emotion. As I said in my previous post, this issue is about the Federalization of our education system, more specifically in the area of sex education. I think that is an area where social conservatives & fiscal conservatives can find common ground on this issue!
If you think this education program is targeted at adults, you've lost sight of the issue at hand.
well... I dunno. Mark Twain had this to say about it:
"Of all the forms of intercourse, this has the least to recommend it. As an occupation it's to wearing, as an amusement, too fleeting; and as a public exhibition, there's no money in it."
What if 100% of parents in a school district want more than basic biology taught in their local schools? One of the core Enlightenment concepts has to do with freedom of movement. When we force our society to be more homogenized through power of our Federal government, what's the point of having freedom of movement?
I would take the point one step further: In my opinion, the lack of sexual desire is as if not more abnormal than homosexuality. (Note that I said "abnormal," not "perverse." The distinction is important because whereas homosexuality is both abnormal and perverse, the lack of sexual desire is simply abnormal.)
That kind of unanimous opinion is highly unlikely. If even just one parent objects to teaching more than "basic biology," why should they be forced to accept the decisions of of the majority? For that matter, why should one taxpayer be forced to subsidize teaching something he finds immoral or wrong?
One of the core Enlightenment concepts has to do with freedom of movement. When we force our society to be more homogenized through power of our Federal government, what's the point of having freedom of movement?
I'll take you one step further; why should a particular school district be homogenized through the power of the local public school board? Why not make education a private matter, where parents can pick and choose from a variety of different value systems offered by different private schools?
That would seem to maximize the freedom of movement and choice for individuals.
Me too. I just move them along because you know there are a whole bunch of women secretly reading these to see what men say:)
As things are currently, you're right. Recognize that for what it is, a sign of the success of the homogenization. Our nation was founded by people who moved in response to things like communities that had different values than their own, even when moving involved risking life & limb. Movement for things such as a communities values are one of the things that contributed to the vibrancy of our nation. We now want to stay put & have government force the community to change. Like minded people built most of the early schools.
If even just one parent objects to teaching more than "basic biology," why should they be forced to accept the decisions of of the majority?
Put the local school districts policy out front & let people know that if they move into the district, this will be what their children are taught.
For that matter, why should one taxpayer be forced to subsidize teaching something he finds immoral or wrong?
Move to a community that is more in line with your beliefs. Sitting on your butt, demanding everyone else change what they do is contrary to the principle that involves freedom of movement.
I'll take you one step further; why should a particular school district be homogenized through the power of the local public school board?
If you wanna have a community that has no public school, more power to you.
Why not make education a private matter, where parents can pick and choose from a variety of different value systems offered by different private schools?
You'd be eliminating a local option to have a publicly supported school. When the issue is fully local, without any dictates from above, a lot of different options become available.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.