It doesn't matter WHY it was ineffective. It was ineffective. Abstinence-only education is ineffective, and puts young people at risk. It should not be used.

Okay, I decided that wasn't enough, so I'm adding to this post:

I agree whole-heartedly that abstinence is absolutely the best option for young people. It is by far the healthiest choice, both physically and emotionally. However, in American society today, educating children only to abstain is dangerous. The fact is that many (if not most) kids are going to have sex before marriage, even if they do wait until they're adults. We have an obligation to teach them as much as possible about how to have sex safely.

Think about how teenagers are. What do they do when you tell them not to do something? Sex is a biological drive, feels really really good, and moreover, teenagers possess all the tools they need to have sex (i.e., genitals). There is no way that just teaching them to abstain is going to be enough to keep them safe. And studies like the one you posted here are supporting that idea.

That is why I say that abstinence-only education should not be used.

That's good for you. If you don't see it my way, there will be a couple of chaps in brown uniforms knocking on your door wishing an "interview."

If sex had absolutely nothing to do with marriage, there would be no restrictions on incest at all. Obviously there are sexual implications somewhere. And to deny that there ARE sexual implication is yet ANOTHER example of the exceptions homosexuals are trying to foist on sensical thinking to pigeonhole what they want into existence.

You must have some significant blind spots in your direct line of vision. Did you not see that I said, "Sex is a part of marriage"? Does that sound like I'm denying that there ARE sexual implications? Does that sound like I'm saying sex has absolutely nothing to do with sex?

You have never seen, nor will you see me stretch facts to accommodate my point of view.

I still maintain that sex is a part of marriage, but as long as both partners are okay with it, sex is NOT A NECESSARY PART of marriage (civil or religious). Therefore, a thread about gay sex practices is irrelevant in a forum discussing same-sex marriage.

But you ended it with the caveat "not "legally" necessarily a part of marriage". Your sentence made the sorry effort to say two things at the same time. LAME!!!

And we can create thread about anything gay in this forum. Have you read back at some of the thread titles?

Actually, I said, "Sex is a part of marriage, but as long as both partners are okay with it, sex is not a necessary part of marriage (civil or religious)." I said it that way because one of the rights of civil marriage is to be able to have sex with your spouse. If your spouse does not fulfill this obligation and the marriage is not consummated, then a person can legally seek an annulment on these grounds. But as long as both partners are okay with a sexless marriage, it is perfectly okay to not have sex within a marriage. My point is that sex is not absolute requirement for civil marriage.

And my sentence was a compound sentence. We sometimes use these to make two points at the same time. It's a part of intelligent conversation.

You're right. You can create a thread about anything gay that you want in here. And everyone knows that everything we CAN do, we SHOULD do. The topic is gay marriage and the forum is a political forum. There are more appropriate places to discuss gay sex. I'm just sayin'.

yes - well - gay sex is what fxashun and garysher are obsessed with

Not an absolute requirement, but not to the point where it's a total non issue.



Where on this site. Especially if you look at the history of this category.