EA, I think there are a lot of things that need to be done that aren't in regards to this. There is much to be applauded with comprehensive sex ed, it is the sex ed part that I have serious reservations with. I cannot prove it, but I would suspect that the sex ed part (I am meaning here the education sexual identity, gender confusion, trans-genderism, contraception, abortion, etc.) has little to do with any success of those programs. Comprehensive by its nature is too broad to find out what exactly is working. It is kinda like taking a Day Quill, those little orange pills are filled with all kinds of medicine and treats anything so that you don't know exactly what is causing the ailment; it treats only the symptoms. Sex ed. also only treats symptoms. The goal of sex ed is to have a healthy respect for a natural and co-creative personal act that has natural and organic consequences like pregnancy which thousands and thousands of years of human evolution has shown is best suited in a family, i.e. marriage. Abstinence-only would not be my default program by any means. Just as I would not want comprehensive sex ed for my child, I would not expect another person to accept abstinence only (or another program) because I want it. This is another reason why I think it is a parental thing.

My solution or recommendation is to educate the parents how to teach their children while schools teach character and social development. So I do respect your and other people opinions, I just don't think they should be forced on other children.

Jared--Ah, you're messin' with me!

I know you believe that anything but abstinence is a direct pipeline to Planned Parenthood, but did you know that many students of comprehensive sex ed actually choose abstinence (citing that they wouldn't have when they thought it was their ONLY choice) after being presented with a variety of information? See, some are making the best choice for themselves.

No matter how badly you want abstinence-only sex ed to be the only option out there, there are still pregnancies in the population exposed to it. How do you explain that?

I know you went to a Catholic High School. And I know abstinence-only was the only theme approved. Can you honestly tell me that not a one of your classmates was sexually active or that there were not any 'unplanned' pregnancies among your classmates?

Again, I respect your decisions about your own family, but what about the other kids?

EA, yes, I do remember it. I was kinda fluffing around seeing if you remember when I asked the question.

After more research over the year, I still rest with the family. I would actually favor a character program mixed with parental education on abstinence. I don't find contraception education does anything except give Planned Parenthood more costumers as they know the failure rate of the best contraception still provide clientele for them. I mean they provide many of these programs and perform more abortions than any other organization, this seems like a conflict of interest if there were one. Rather, something showing just as much success, stable and monogamous relationships, empowers both man and woman to be who they were created to be.

Jared, you asked a question, and I answered it for you.

If you will remember way back, you and I had a very long discussion on this matter and we agreed then, that in a perfect world, children would get good moral education from their families. Do you remember that discussion? We also agreed at that time, that sadly, that is not the case.

Fast forward to your daughter being a freshman in high school (which I believe is about 6 years too late, but for the sanity of our readers). You are doing your parental duty as you see it in regard to her sex ed. No problem. But are we to completely ignore the rest of her English class that does not have a parent like you? Act like they are not sexually active? Act like they just instinctively know how to behave? Act like they don't matter?

What are we to do? It is ignorant, first, to think that everyone shares your moral code. Nothing wrong with your code; the ignorance comes in thinking that most others share it. Clearly that is not the case.

Second, you cannot, cannot, cannot complain about folks on welfare if you are not allowing a means to reduce a need. You cannot complain about the problem AND complain about a part of the solution. It is not possible.

Jared, I am not worried about your children. Your children have responsible parents. I am truly concerned about those children who could use a parent like you, and not just for the sex ed, but for all the other good examples you show your family.

I side with the family on this one. It is a natural right of parents to educate their children, especially in matters of conjugal love.

You are correct Pat! Just tell them not to do it! Of course! Why didn't we think of that sooner?

When I hear from young women that you can't get pregnant if the guy drinks tons of Mountain Dew or that you can get pregnant by sitting on a guy's lap in a wet swimsuit, it doesn't take me but about a nano-second to realize that these young people have no clue as to how sex even works, much less what the repercussions are!

Yes, I know folks think they can scare young people into compliance with misinformation, but is that what we really want to do? It doesn't work so well, so why would you keep doing it?

Folks--it is 2012 and we are 100 years behind!

Thanks EA for the neutral explaination. Sometimes we get lost in the terminology and aren't sure waht we are talking about! It would be nice if there weren't so many unintended pregnancies teen and otherwise. BUT that isn't the world we live in and have lived in. A friend who had been married to a doctor wh had a lot of these young girls as patients-and this was a lot of years ago-told her that"stopping teenagers from having sex was like trying to stop a locomotive by standing on the tracks with your hand up!! From the CDC report some knowledge would have helped a lot.
Patrick Barnes

Jared--you didn't google it?

From healthyyouthalliance.com: "Comprehensive Sex Education teaches about abstinence as the best method for avoiding STDs and unintended pregnancy, but also teaches about condoms and contraception to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy and of infection with STDs, including HIV. It also teaches interpersonal and communication skills and helps young people explore their own values, goals, and options.

Abstinence-Based Education—Another term normally used to mean comprehensive sexuality education

Abstinence-Plus Education—Another term for normally used to mean comprehensive sexuality education."

Broader topic than Abstinence Only sex ed. We know teens are sexually active and this is one more way to make them safe from pregnancy and STD's. For those of you think that this will give kids a clue to have sex--please step into the 21st Century--kids are having sex, and they have been having sex. This is nothing new. However, the teen pregnancy rate and the spread of STD's will both fall when teens are given accurate, usuable information.

What is comprehensive sex ed?

Regarding this subject, I think my mom had the right approach. Besides her, "Just because a girl goes out with you, she don't have to kiss you", I tell "Mom must've worn out two rosaries while I was in high school. If I'd gotten "out of line", would a giant rosary really have fallen out of the sky and strangled me? That should scare any kid into keeping "both feet flat on the floor".

You make some good points. I understand that the public school is not a church. Many folks celebrated when they kicked out school prayer, 10 commandments etc. The supposed argument was that the public should not be championing/promoting anything other than learning the basics.

Now I have a question ; why aren't the same folks up in arms because the California Public Schools are forcing the children to learn about the many wonderful contributions that the gay/lesbian people have contributed to there state & the U.S.????? As of Jan 1 2012 that is by law being taught. Do you want me to believe that that is not promoting/championing something that has nothing to do with education? To me it proves hypocrisy & clearly demonstrates to me the true motives.

I believe in separation of church & state, but not truth & state. I suggest that making public schools a neutral place meaning; free of any kind of of religious influences now equates into a place that becomes quite hostile to Christ, & quite contrary to His Ways.

Does anybody agree that the schools should sending the message to the students that we know you are going to be sexually active, every one is but here is what you need to to do to keep from getting pregnant; we have condoms. Pills & calenders to go by so that you may know when you are most likely to get pregnant etc.

I recommend viewing the documentary called AMERICAS GODLY HERITAGE. It was put out by a man that lives in Dallas. Going back to the land marks that was once included in the public schools is the kind of sex ed that worked for 200 yrs

Amen Observer

Since it should be clear to anyone capable of rational thought that the public schools are incapable of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, why should we expect them to be any better at anything else? Schools can [sometimes] reinforce the morals that a child learns at home; schools cannot instill a moral compass in a child that has none. It is long past time for the schools to get out of the nanny business and back to the only business with which they should be concerned -- education. And it is also long past time for parents to either begin parenting or stop having children.

Hey, Gary, in listing all the horrid "evils" the poor little unsuspecting public is subjected to (because, you know, humans can't think for themselves without an imaginary guy telling them what to do), you forgot Rock 'N Roll! I know you went off on a tangent the other day on some other article about the evil soul of Rock 'N Roll, particularly "Christian" rock.....just wanted to bring that up in case you get the feeling your list there may not be complete.

Also, I take offense at the phrase "girls how they can use there bodies for prophet, attention, fame etc." I'll have you know that I have NEVER used my body for "prophet".....unless you count that Maharishi I met backstage once after a Robert Plant concert...... :D

Oooooops, that would be - let's see - premarital sex, Rock 'N Roll AND another religion combined.......Hey, is that the stuff your nightmares (or best dreams....) are made of, Gary?

I haven't had time to re-visit the post. Thanks for a civil discourse. I posted the article because when i read it I was appalled at the ignorance of our young people in this matter of a basic human interaction. The morality of pre-marital intercourse is not where I was coming from. I don't judge others on this. My point is that with some simple instructions and information FROM SOMEONE a lot of these unwanted pregnancies and the resultant maybe unwanted,abused and neglected children couls be prevented. The offspring of these unions have a high probablility of repeating the cylce when they become of age.
Patrick Barnes

Ok, you win, we win, have a good night.

Gary--I really should remember my audience when I write something.

I know you are talking about married couples and teaching about sex to them in a church setting.

I'm talking about public school junior high and high school KIDS.

I don't know that sex ed has been taught anywhere for the [first] 200 years.

How about we just quit here? You and I will never come to any alignment on this. To continue would be foolish for me and futile for you.

EdithAnn

Ok, I will try to stay with the way sex ed was taught here in America for the first 200 yrs, I belive it had a better sucess rate. But you can try to tackel the problem in the best way as you see fit. Hopefully between the 2 mind sets there can be victory.

Gary, I honestly don't believe you have a clue as to what you're even discussing here. But that's okay. Never mind.

I support comprehensive sex education for teens. It has a much better success rate at preventing pregnancy than abstinance only sex ed does. The only place I think you and I agree is that neither of us likes to see teens having babies.

You asked for an explenation of the degrees of abstinence, I was just trying to clarify it, & no I dont want that taught as a line of first defence in trying to prevent teen pregnency.

Did I misunderstand this sentence--"I mean there are other ways to be intimate (sexually) that does not include/allow the threat of getting pregnant."?

And again, I'll ask, do you realize we're talking about junior high and highg school students here? Not married couples.

No I am not ok with with fooling arround. I do think this is a complicated issue & maybe there are few easy answeres, but for sure the answere is not to encourage all sails & no anchors by just giving in & being overwhelmed with this plague & acepting it with out a fight.

You stand firm, that will encourage me to follow you, I will then speak to them in my circle of influence, they will inturn will speak to there families & freinds etc.

We still have abortions, pills, contraceptives, adoptions etc that we can fall back on if all else fails. Lets just make sure that we try the all else first & forever.

Thanks GW

Gary, your answer kind of confirms what I thought you meant.

There are no degrees of abstinance. You either are, or you're not. Doing other sexual things that don't risk a pregnancy is not being abstinant.

But, as to your answer, I see that you are okay with fooling around, just don't have sexual intercourse.

Thank you.

You do realize we are talking about junior high and high school kids, not married couples, right?

Ok, I have stewed loong enough, as I face you 2 as the Dynamic duo, lets try to work together & see what we can agree on together as a team & not so much how right I can prove myself to be. You know debating & all that.

Eann, degrees of abstinence,, I mean there are other ways to be intimate (sexually) that does not include/allow the threat of getting pregnant. If that is taught or encouraged then I feel that is wrong & not the long term solution.

I agree with Mr Writein that one size does not fit all.

In order to be more politically correct we have kicked God out of our public schools, we are now so careful to not offend other peoples beliefs or the lack there of. I to want to try & be respectful of others, But when the show down comes & I have to choose between offending my neighbor or offending the Lord, sorry the neighbor will get the short end of the stick.

Now we have made it illegal to mention the God that started America in first place in the public schools, we have dreamed up all kind of fantastic reasons (excuses) why there can be no room for Him;. 10 commandments etc

Think of it, this is the only church age where Christ is put out of His church & is knocking trying to get back in.

Ok, Christ being a good God & a gentleman allows us to have our own way. BUT WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCES? Can we not see the results of exercising our freedoms. We cant tell a young person the truth anymore about why they should preserve them selves for there future husband/wives.

A womans body is a sacred thing, & she is given a sacred trust that she must protect. Instead we watch movies about how fast a girl can lose her virginity. Hollywood teaches how we should Dance with the stars (fallen stars) & have American idol. Desperate House wifes, Bay watch, Wife swapping shows etc & Porn should be protected by the first amendment, WHAT UTER HOGWASH.

These shows accelerate sin, they send a strong message to the youth, especially to the girls how they can use there bodies for prophet, attention, fame etc. What does it prophet a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.

How in the world can we begin to teach our youth about anything when the majority of the adults are so diluted & lost.

We should be able to encourage children in school to choose the rite direction. If they dont choose correctly then that is there choice & may exercise there rites & make bad decisions. But to just sit back & say well its none of my business yall just do what feels good, it will be ok, is wrong,lazy etc.

Lets not be ashamed of the Gospel any longer, His Word should not embarrass us at all. TRUE LOVE IS CORRECTIVE. If we are ashamed of Him He also will be ashamed to stand with us on that day when we will have to give an account of how we spent this life. This life that He gave us.

Thanks GW

Gary.

I would like to say this. All you want is one size fits all solution. That is the problem is that we already tried your way. I know what you are going to say that I am disrespecting you and God, that I have some spirit dwelling within me, or some other loony idea.

I got more to say on this topic, but I'll let you stew over what I said.

Gary, I am working on a really good response for your comment, but first you will have to explain a little further.

I do not understand 'degrees of abstinance'. Abstinance isn't usually referred to as something that has degrees.

Help me out here so I can properly respond. Thank you.

EdithAnn

Your right, To teach abstinence without including the Gospel is foolish, to teach certain degrees of abstinence with the only motive being to prevent pregnancy is worse. Would it be right to teach other forms of recreational sex but just dont include intercourse?

Can you explain what you mean, Gary, because looking at what you have written here, it looks you endorse comprehensive sex ed, and somehting tells me that is not what you mean at all.

Abstinance Only might work beter if the rest of the story was also taught along with it.

Its like trying to teach a man not to steal food, clouths etc but not teaching him how to work, be responsible. & also not telling him why its wrong.

I wonder if we cant teach the rest because we are ashamed of Him & His Word.

Good topic, Pat.

And we already know the answer to the question.

It's not.