Parents Want Abstinence Taught, Not More Sex Ed.

[Decker]

The problem is kids don't use them.  You used a condom your first time?  How about the 5th, 15th, 50th time?    And I think you mean "anecdotal" evidence?  My position is once a kid experiences sex with and without a condom that the condoms will be discarded, like they routinely are.   

I think the HIV threat is a farce.  Check out the link I posted with the excerpts to Tony Brown's book.  The typical heterosexual isn't really at risk for HIV through normal heterosexual sex.

Telling a kid to abstain from sex while handing him a condom is essentially telling the kid to have sex.  In other words, telling a kid that behavior is wrong, then showing the kid how to engage in that very behavior is a mixed message.  At the end of the day, it makes no sense.  Either you tell the kid to abstain or you tell the kid to get his freak on.   
 

The Mayo Clinic, the Center for Disease Control and every other medical authority under the sun has concluded that condoms save lives, stave off the contracting of STDs and is effective birth control.

The heterosexual aids myth and the HIV doesn't cause AIDS myth are part of the same Urban Legends floating around the internet. 

Science concludes otherwise. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm
"In 2005, the largest estimated proportion of HIV/AIDS diagnoses were for men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by adults and adolescents infected through heterosexual contact."

"How Widespread is Condom Use Among Teens?

A survey in 2000 of teens aged 15 to 17 by The Kaiser Family Foundation and Seventeen magazine found that:

More than one-third of teens surveyed (38 percent) said they had had sexual intercourse.
Nine out of 10 teens who've had sex said they use birth control all, some, or part of the time.
Virtually all teens who have had intercourse (98 percent) have used condoms.
But half also admitted they'd had sex without a condom. (2)"

I don't know how you can still claim that condoms are not used.

I understand your assumption that sexual activity among teens is wrong.  I think most parents feel that way.

But you are fighting millions of years of biology.  The teen body is alive with sexual impulses.  To fight that with abstinence only is to back a losing horse.

As Mick said in Rocky III, "You can't win Rock!"  You can't win that battle BeachBum

[Dos Equis]

The Mayo Clinic, the Center for Disease Control and every other medical authority under the sun has concluded that condoms save lives, stave off the contracting of STDs and is effective birth control.

The heterosexual aids myth and the HIV doesn't cause AIDS myth are part of the same Urban Legends floating around the internet. 

Science concludes otherwise. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm
"In 2005, the largest estimated proportion of HIV/AIDS diagnoses were for men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by adults and adolescents infected through heterosexual contact."

"How Widespread is Condom Use Among Teens?

A survey in 2000 of teens aged 15 to 17 by The Kaiser Family Foundation and Seventeen magazine found that:

More than one-third of teens surveyed (38 percent) said they had had sexual intercourse.
Nine out of 10 teens who've had sex said they use birth control all, some, or part of the time.
Virtually all teens who have had intercourse (98 percent) have used condoms.
But half also admitted they'd had sex without a condom. (2)"

I don't know how you can still claim that condoms are not used.

I understand your assumption that sexual activity among teens is wrong.  I think most parents feel that way.

But you are fighting millions of years of biology.  The teen body is alive with sexual impulses.  To fight that with abstinence only is to back a losing horse.

As Mick said in Rocky III, "You can't win Rock!"  You can't win that battle BeachBum

"But half also admitted they'd had sex without a condom. (2)"   I rest my case.   

Here are the excerpts from the link I posted about HIV:

Okay.  Got the Tony Brown book.  Published in 1995.  I was wrong about it not being a heterosexual disease.  He posits that in the U.S. it is primarily spread through IV drug use and those who come into contact with people involved with IV drug users.  Here are some excerpts from "Black Lies, White Lies" (kinda long):

"It has become abundantly clear, in spite of a great campaign of disinformation and reprehensible scare tactics, that 'AIDS' does not attack the general population.  After fifteen years, it remains almost exclusively confined to IV-drug users (about 32 percent of the cases) and a subset of male homosexuals which accounted for about 60 percent of the total 140, 428 AIDS cases in the United States in 1991.  The total number of homosexuals who have had 'AIDS' since it was discovered in 1981 was 217,012 as of December 1993."

"About 95 percent of those contract 'AIDS' have a history of drug use--according to Dr. Robert E. Willner in his book Deadly Deception.  Willner quotes studies that claim it takes from '500 to 1,000 unprotected sexual encounters to transmit' HIV . . . ."

"The odds of a healthy non-drug-using heterosexual getting 'AIDS' are the same as for getting hit by lightening.  And from a population of 255 million Americans, only 140, 428 were living with 'AIDS' as of 1994.
John Lauritsen and Hank Wilson, in their book Death Rush, accuse the CDC of fraud:  'The effect of the CDC's statistical trickery is to underreport IV-drug users as an AIDS group by at least 50 percent; the effect is to construe AIDS as a venereal disease, rather than a drug-induced condition."

One of the world's leading authorities on viruses and retroviruses, Dr. Peter Duesberg, "blames the rise of 'AIDS on the 'massive escalation in the consumption of recreational drugs' in the 1960s and 1970s.  In a ten-year period alone, Americans increased their use of cocaine by 200 percent, while the use of amphetamines and poppers skyrocketed among homosexuals.  Drug abuse, Duesberg says, resulted in the reemergence of old diseases such as tuberculosis--one of the 'AIDS' diseases--in the 1980s and 1990s."

"Duesberg's theory of how 'AIDS' spreads is simple to follow.  He holds that 'AIDS' begins in those who are biologically most susceptible:  people whose lifestyles make them perfect hosts for a 'benign' retrovirus (HIV).  He says it that HIV hardly ever becomes active even in 'AIDS.'  These 'thirdworldized' hosts, all of whom have ravaged their body in some way, include heterosexual drug addicts; and those drug-abusing homosexuals whose irresponsible 'bathhouse' sex behavior exposes them to lethal microbes and the spread of infections."

. . .

More:

"Michael Callen, one of the founders of the People with AIDS Coalition, lived twelve years with 'AIDS.'  Just before his death, he offered a compelling confession in HEAL, a publication for alternative health therapies, that lends credence to Duesberg's 'DAIDS' theory [Drug Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome]:

By the age of 27, I estimate I had 3,000 different sex partners.  I'd also had:  hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B; herpes simplex types 1 and 2; shigella; entamoeba histolytica; Giardia; syphilis; gonorrhea; nonspecific urethritis; chlamydia; venereal warts; CMV; EBV reactivations; and finally cryptosporidiosis and AIDS.  The question for me wasn't why I was sick with AIDS but rather how I had been able to remain standing on two feet for so long.  If you blanked out my name and handed my medical chart, prior to AIDS, to a doctor, she/he might reasonable have guessed that it was the chart of a 65-year-old equatorial African living in squalor.

"Callen very likely put his finger on what is the probable link between the 'AIDS' outbreak among high-risk groups in the West and the malnourished heterosexual population in Africa:  a Third World health status.  This sort of ravaged immune system first developed in the West among a bathhouse culture of male bisexuals and homosexuals, as well as heterosexual injection-drug users and homosexual long-term recreational drug abusers.  These subcultures were extremely vulnerable because of debilitated bodies and a Third World hygiene status."

"`Something other than homosexuality' causes 'AIDS,' says Duesberg.  'Your all-American homosexual neighbor will never get 'AIDS.'  It's only the ones who have hundreds, or thousands, of sexual contacts a year.  And how is that achieved?  Almost exclusively by chemicals.
"Drug abuse is rampant among homosexuals who practice promiscuous sex.  For multiple orgasms and as an anal relaxant, this bathhouse subculture routinely uses 'poppers' (amyl nitrite inhalants), and their 'recreational' regime consists of PCP, amphetamines, angel dust, cocaine, heroin, uppers and downers, Valium, and alcohol,' Duesberg explains."

"In my opinion, then, the illness we call 'AIDS' in the United States is not by any means a 'homosexual disease.'  I believe it is precipitated by a chemical injury, but it is also triggered by a variety of microorganisms as cofactors that destroys the body's immune system.  The process is a deadly synergistic combustion.  High-risk 'AIDS' behavior in the West is primarily drug abuse, receptive anal intercourse, poor hygiene, malnutrition, and unprotected sex--especially if there is a history of sexually transmitted diseases." 

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=95759.25

 

[Colossus_500]

I try not to hang out in locker rooms but I do like gladiator flicks...my goodness Scraps is a boy dog.
Even if that were true, it still does not change the fact that use of condoms can be a lifesaver--HIV, HPV.
I understand your point.  But children do act like animals.  Hell, adults act like animals when it comes to sex--anyway, anyhow.

As far as the parents' wishes, well, if I had a daughter, I'd wish that she'd be a virgin forever.

That is wishful thinking and purposeful ignorance.

What about the other STD's?

[Decker]

50% did not use condoms in subsequent acts of sex but 50% DID use them.

How does that even remotely permit you to rest your case?  You claim that virtually no teen uses condoms.  98% use them on the maiden voyage and 50% use them subsequently.

That  Tony Brown book is not only dated, it's also wrong.

  "Through 2004, of all cases of HIV infection in the United States reported to CDC, 34% were attributed to male-male sexual contact, 14% to injection-drug use, and 20% to heterosexual contact "
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5506a1.htm?s_cid=ss5506a1_e

Anyway, it is incontrovertible that condoms greatly reduce the risk of pregnancy & transmitting STDs.

Relying on a teen's judgment to do the right thing re sex is dicey.  It's damn near immoral when potentially life threatening diseases can ravage your children just b/c of a sex romp (aids or hpv (cervical cancer in girls)) and the use of a condom may have prevented that.

[Colossus_500]

15.3 million new sexually transmitted infections each year in the United States alone, and more than 200,000 deaths worldwide due to STDs.

[Decker]

What about the other STD's?

When used consistently and correctly, male latex condoms are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV infection (i.e., HIV-negative partners in heterosexual serodiscordant relationships in which condoms were consistently used were 80% less likely to become HIV-infected compared with persons in similar relationships in which condoms were not used) and can reduce the risk for other STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis, and might reduce the risk of women developing pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) (13,14). Condom use might reduce the risk for transmission of herpes simplex virus-2 (HSV-2), although data for this effect are more limited (15,16). Condom use might reduce the risk for HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer [17]) and mitigate the adverse consequences of infection with HPV, as their use has been associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and clearance of HPV infection in women (18), and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men (19). A limited number of prospective studies have demonstrated a protective effect of condoms on the acquisition of genital HPV; one recent prospective study among newly sexually active college women demonstrated that consistent condom use was associated with a 70% reduction in risk for HPV transmission (20).

http://www.cdc.gov/STD/treatment/2006/clinical.htm

[Colossus_500]

Condoms and Abstinence: Separating Truth From Myth

The truth is, most teens are not sexually active
Q. Since most teens are sexually active, shouldn’t schools teach the majority how to protect themselves with condoms, rather than catering to the minority who abstain?
A. No. The truth is, most teens are not sexually active. The latest survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that teen sexual activity has been declining steadily over the last seven years (since about the time abstinence programs really took hold). The CDC’s 2001 Youth Risks Behavior Survey found that fewer than 43 percent of our nation’s teens had ever engaged in sexual intercourse, and just one-third said they are “currently sexually active.” Clearly, teens are capable of abstaining from sex; they just need the right motivation and support.

Q. But doesn’t abstinence-only education leave that one-third who are sexually active—which is still a sizeable minority—unprotected and vulnerable?
A. Granted, kids who engage in “unprotected” sex are vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unwanted pregnancies. But this raises another crucial question: How much protection do condoms provide? Studies have found condom failure rates in protecting against pregnancies for teens to be as high as 22.5 percent. As for protecting against STDs, in 2001 several government health agencies together released a report on condom effectiveness. The report found evidence that condoms are about 85 percent effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. (Is 85 percent good enough in protecting your child against a deadly and incurable virus?) The report also found condoms to be somewhat effective in protecting men (but not women) from gonorrhea. But the prominent scientists who prepared the report found no conclusive evidence that condoms protect against any other STD, including HPV, the primary cause of cervical cancer, which kills more women than AIDS does. Sixty-eight million Americans now have an incurable STD. Many caught those incurable STDs while using condoms. No one has ever caught AIDS or any other STD from being abstinent. Who’s really more vulnerable, the teen taught to use condoms or the one who’s motivated to save sex for marriage?

Another crucial point to remember is that kids are notoriously spontaneous—and forgetful. (How many times have you reminded your teen to take his jacket to the football game as he rushed from the house?) The CDC has stated that for condoms to be effective they must be used “every time you have sex—100 percent of the time—no exceptions.” One study found that only about 13 percent of sexually active people always use a condom. That figure may be even worse for teens. In the heat of passion kids are likely to forget the eight-step process for proper condom use.

Q. But haven’t abstinence education programs been shown to be ineffective?
A. That’s a widely spread myth. The biggest and best government-funded study of abstinence programs will not be released until 2005. However, a report from Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation found 10 proven abstinence programs. The study is available on the Internet at www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm

[Decker]

15.3 million new sexually transmitted infections each year in the United States alone, and more than 200,000 deaths worldwide due to STDs.

That is awful.

Can you imagine how bad those numbers would be without condoms or sex ed.?

[Decker]

....www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm

As a rule of thumb, I discount any research from THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION. 

It produces pseudo-academic garbage.  Just look at the huckster Dan Mitchell--THF resident scholar on taxes--he's a corporate shill.

I have a cousin whose a HF member and it's an embarrassment to my family.

The Heritage Foundation is a partisan shithole.  Sorry for the highbrow commentary.

[Colossus_500]

That is awful.

Can you imagine how bad those numbers would be without condoms or sex ed.?

Give up, Decker.  

The best possible answer to reduce HIV or STD's is abstinence.  It's that cut and dry.  No argument that you could conjure up for the use of condoms vs. abstinence is even worth debating.  And even with 85% of parents agreeing with that fact, the gov't chooses to stick their head in the sand (along with others who believe condons are the next best solution).  The gov't doesn't want to fund the abstinence programs because they know that sex sells, especially to teens and the early 20's,30's, maybe even 40's (I'm thinking of all the commercials like body wash, body spray/deodorants like Axe, Tag, etc).  Now why would they want to stop that kind of money train when it keeps the economy flowing.  It all comes down to the dollar bills.  Abstinence costs virtually nothing.  A six-pack of condoms costs money....see where I'm going?

[Colossus_500]

As a rule of thumb, I discount any research from THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION. 

It produces pseudo-academic garbage.  Just look at the huckster Dan Mitchell--THF resident scholar on taxes--he's a corporate shill.

I have a cousin whose a HF member and it's an embarrassment to my family.

The Heritage Foundation is a partisan shithole.  Sorry for the highbrow commentary.

No need for apologies.  I expected such a response.  That's usually the case around here.

[Decker]

Give up, Decker.  

The best possible answer to reduce HIV or STD's is abstinence.  It's that cut and dry.  No argument that you could conjure up for the use of condoms vs. abstinence is even worth debating.  And even with 85% of parents agreeing with that fact, the gov't chooses to stick their head in the sand (along with others who believe condons are the next best solution).  The gov't doesn't want to fund the abstinence programs because they know that sex sells, especially to teens and the early 20's,30's, maybe even 40's (I'm thinking of all the commercials like body wash, body spray/deodorants like Axe, Tag, etc).  Now why would they want to stop that kind of money train when it keeps the economy flowing.  It all comes down to the dollar bills.  Abstinence costs virtually nothing.  A six-pack of condoms costs money....see where I'm going?

Abstinence is 100% effective.

It is also unreliable. 

Sex amongst teens does happen.  THAT IS AN INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT OF LIFE.

In 2005, 47% of teens have had intercourse.

In 2004, an estimated 4,883 young people aged 13-24 in the 33 states reporting to CDC were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, representing about 13% of the persons diagnosed that year.3
 
Each year, there are approximately 19 million new STD infections, and almost half of them are among youth aged 15 to 24.4
 
In 2000, 13% of all pregnancies, or 831,000, occurred among adolescents aged 15-19.5

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/index.htm

B/c of your position of abstinence only, you are denying education and access to our teens.  Because of your prejudice and ideals, teens will be kept in the dark about the facts surround condoms.

[Dos Equis]

50% did not use condoms in subsequent acts of sex but 50% DID use them.

How does that even remotely permit you to rest your case?  You claim that virtually no teen uses condoms.  98% use them on the maiden voyage and 50% use them subsequently.

That  Tony Brown book is not only dated, it's also wrong.

  "Through 2004, of all cases of HIV infection in the United States reported to CDC, 34% were attributed to male-male sexual contact, 14% to injection-drug use, and 20% to heterosexual contact "
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5506a1.htm?s_cid=ss5506a1_e

Anyway, it is incontrovertible that condoms greatly reduce the risk of pregnancy & transmitting STDs.

Relying on a teen's judgment to do the right thing re sex is dicey.  It's damn near immoral when potentially life threatening diseases can ravage your children just b/c of a sex romp (aids or hpv (cervical cancer in girls)) and the use of a condom may have prevented that.

I don't believe the Kaiser Foundation study.  But even if you accept it as fact, half of all teenagers don't use condoms.  That's huge.  My position is guys will not use them.  Does that mean 100 percent will not use them?  No.  Overwhelming majority?  Yes.  I could probably find a study that confirms this and one that doesn't.  

[Decker]

No need for apologies.  I expected such a response.  That's usually the case around here.

I was hoping that you'd take my admonition to heart.  But I'll show you now why THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION is bullshit.

First a word about "abstinence only" programs started by Bush in TX.  How about "FAILURE"
During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females.43 Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states.44
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html

Now onto the Heritage nonsense.  In 2006, 47% (an increase from 2001) of today's teens have had sex.  About half.  If that's an endorsement for abstinence only programs, I'd hate to see countervailing evidence.

The twisted rhetoric of "gee, condoms are not 100% safeguard against STDs, so to hell with them and "hello abstinence only", is laughable if not sad. 

Here's an unassailable fact: 47% (half) of all teenagers have sex. 

Look at this again:  In 2004, an estimated 4,883 young people aged 13-24 in the 33 states reporting to CDC were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, representing about 13% of the persons diagnosed that year.  http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/index.htm

Abstinence Only is not working.

Once again, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION is shown to be nonsense.

[Colossus_500]

Abstinence is 100% effective.

It is also unreliable. 

Sex amongst teens does happen.  THAT IS AN INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT OF LIFE.

In 2005, 47% of teens have had intercourse.

In 2004, an estimated 4,883 young people aged 13-24 in the 33 states reporting to CDC were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, representing about 13% of the persons diagnosed that year.3
 
Each year, there are approximately 19 million new STD infections, and almost half of them are among youth aged 15 to 24.4
 
In 2000, 13% of all pregnancies, or 831,000, occurred among adolescents aged 15-19.5

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/index.htm

B/c of your position of abstinence only, you are denying education and access to our teens.  Because of your prejudice and ideals, teens will be kept in the dark about the facts surround condoms.

So, if we go back...say 30-40 years ago (pre-sex ed), we'd see the same kind of numbers that we see now?

[Colossus_500]

I was hoping that you'd take my admonition to heart.  But I'll show you now why THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION is bullshit.

First a word about "abstinence only" programs started by Bush in TX.  How about "FAILURE"
During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females.43 Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states.44
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html

Now onto the Heritage nonsense.  In 2006, 47% (an increase from 2001) of today's teens have had sex.  About half.  If that's an endorsement for abstinence only programs, I'd hate to see countervailing evidence.

The twisted rhetoric of "gee, condoms are not 100% safeguard against STDs, so to hell with them and "hello abstinence only", is laughable if not sad. 

Here's an unassailable fact: 47% (half) of all teenagers have sex. 

Look at this again:  In 2004, an estimated 4,883 young people aged 13-24 in the 33 states reporting to CDC were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, representing about 13% of the persons diagnosed that year.  http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/index.htm

Abstinence Only is not working.

Once again, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION is shown to be nonsense.

How do we know Abstinence ONLY is not working when it's never been put to the test in the last 30-40 years?

[Decker]

How do we know Abstinence ONLY is not working when it's never been put to the test in the last 30-40 years?

Look at Texas' record under Bush's abstinence only program.  The national numbers are getting worse under his program.

What on earth makes you think Abstinence Only is working?

[Decker]

How do we know Abstinence ONLY is not working when it's never been put to the test in the last 30-40 years?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html?nav=rss_nation

Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs

The federal government spends $176 million a year on abstinence-only education, and millions more are spent every year in state and local matching grants.

A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex.

"Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed."

[Decker]

Beach Bum & Colossus_500 have a great night.

I gotta get home and do some landscaping with the wife.

[Dos Equis]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html?nav=rss_nation

Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs

The federal government spends $176 million a year on abstinence-only education, and millions more are spent every year in state and local matching grants.

A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex.

"Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed."

Says "An official at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States," whose goal appears to be to attack anything related to abstinence training.  They probably advocate giving condoms to 13-year-olds.  

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum & Colossus_500 have a great night.

I gotta get home and do some landscaping with the wife.

Landscaping with the wife??  Somebody revive that "gayer than" thread.     [Kidding]  Adios.  Enjoy the weed-pulling.   

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

The original post in this thread comes from the ultra-rightwing Christian group, the Family Research Council.  There is no real research being reported here:  Here's the actual start of what the poster copy and pasted from:

"To: Friends of Family Research Council
From: Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
May 7, 2007 - Monday
Please forward this to your Friends and Family!
Parents Throwing Their 'Wait' Behind Abstinence

 While six states have announced their intent to refuse federal funding for abstinence-only education, a new Zogby poll"


What parents really want is for their kids to be safe, not necessarily abstinent.  Of course parents want their kids to share their values (liberal, conservative, or otherwise), but at the end of the night, parents want their kids to come home safe.  In the real world, safety comes from having good information regarding sex, drugs, and other potentially dangerous activities that kids will be exposed to.  "Just say no" as a educational policy is no kind of education at all.  Although it appeals to the conservative simpletons.

[Decker]

Landscaping with the wife??  Somebody revive that "gayer than" thread.     [Kidding]  Adios.  Enjoy the weed-pulling.   

Oh yeah, me and my EARTHQUAKE rototiller would disagree with you.

hahahaha.  Shit, I hate yardwork.

[Dos Equis]

Oh yeah, me and my EARTHQUAKE rototiller would disagree with you.

hahahaha.  Shit, I hate yardwork.

You need kids.  I haven't cut the grass in years.   

[Colossus_500]

The original post in this thread comes from the ultra-rightwing Christian group, the Family Research Council.  There is no real research being reported here:  Here's the actual start of what the poster copy and pasted from:

"To: Friends of Family Research Council
From: Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
May 7, 2007 - Monday
Please forward this to your Friends and Family!
Parents Throwing Their 'Wait' Behind Abstinence

 While six states have announced their intent to refuse federal funding for abstinence-only education, a new Zogby poll"


What parents really want is for their kids to be safe, not necessarily abstinent.  Of course parents want their kids to share their values (liberal, conservative, or otherwise), but at the end of the night, parents want their kids to come home safe.  In the real world, safety comes from having good information regarding sex, drugs, and other potentially dangerous activities that kids will be exposed to.  "Just say no" as a educational policy is no kind of education at all.  Although it appeals to the conservative simpletons.

Discredited again.  Imagine that?      If it's got a Christian tag on it, it's all irrelevant, right?