The next issue of WORLD Magazine is on its way to the printer ... and will be posted at WORLDmag.com on Friday morning.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Tax dollars and sex ed
My home state of Connecticut has recently unveiled a new website sponsored by the Department of Children and Families. CTParenting.com, paid for with tax money, has a video greeting by Gov. Jodi Rell, welcoming visitors “with great pride” to explore the website for resources and answers to their questions. After all, she says, we want to “keep our families safe, healthy, and happy.”
A click on the section for “teens” brings readers to a list of topics. A few of them, including one called “I think I might be gay,” lead to the website of Advocates for Youth. For the record, AFY receives funding from the Centers for Disease Control, so federal tax dollars are at work here, too.
Here are some highlights from the Advocates for Youth site, proudly brought to Connecticut residents of all ages courtesy of the Department of Children and Families:
- In the Faith & Spirituality section of “Queer Living,” young readers can find discussions about the “flawed interpretations of Christ’s teachings” when it comes to homosexuality. They can also read about the failure of ex-gay ministries.
- From the Frequently Asked Questions section, youthful readers can learn how to find out if they’re “queer, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.” In case there was any doubt, “It is totally normal to question your sexuality and gender identity.”
- Another FAQ asks: “Should I have sex with my partner?” The answer? “There is no ‘should’ when it comes to sex.”
- AFY’s home page has a “Take Action” section in which readers are encouraged to tell their senators that it’s “time to stop abstinence-only programs.” Apparently the Senate Finance Committee had the audacity to pass an amendment authorizing $50 million in funding for such programs, which means, according to AFY, it “gave conservative ideology a victory over science and common sense.”
Personally I think it’s time for Connecticut parents to exercise some real common sense and tell the state that it has no business directly or indirectly advising teens—or anyone else—in matters of sex, gender identity, or faith.
back to top17 Comments to “Tax dollars and sex ed”
I think I will repeat again and again that humans have never been able to control human sexuality, whether they approach it from a “conservative” religious point of view or from a “liberal” hygiene/education point of view or from a way out there self-indulgence point of view.
I repeat this point
1) because it is fairly obvious.
2) probably empirically true, though difficult to test, especially without getting into a lot of trouble
3) to be obnoxious
4) I will also mention that my wife and I, both atheists, will celebrate 44 years of marriage in November. At this point, you ask me, without belief in God, why did you stay faithful? The answers are
a) I am a very shy and introverted person, and generally do not make improper suggestions to women I meet.
b) My wife has let me know that if I cheat, my life is in danger. I am not only very shy, I am a coward.
I don’t this comment insults Christians, as it insults everybody. But only in general; not you in particular; so Mickey does not need to warn me again.
Report comment to moderator
RN
You disprove your first statement. Thank you. Never is a big word.
Report comment to moderator
My mom was born in this once-great state, and I’m glad she isn’t alive to see what it has become.
Report comment to moderator
There’s no “should” when it comes to sex, huh? What if your partner is four? already married? unwilling?
I’m glad we don’t make this stupid argument with other moral quandaries: “There is no ’should’ when it comes to murder.” “There is no ’should’ when it comes to coveting what is on the store shelf or in someone else’s home.”
Report comment to moderator
#2
I guess I should have put in all of what I wrote before. My comments are always too long and not long enough. Another variation of heads we win and tails you lose.
Some individuals are able to control their sexuality in a fairly straightforward and reliable way. There is no evidence I know of of any large group able to do so. Including Christians.
Now it’s time for the we are all fallen escape valve.
#4
I have known people in polyamorous relationships. It’s rare, and probably not suited to our genetic makeup, but if people can do so without scaring the pets…
Report comment to moderator
There is no ’should’ when it comes to murder.”
The devil is in the details. If someone barges into my house with a gun, and I shoot him, clearly not murder because it’s self defense.
On the other hand, if someone is walking around in my yard with a weapon and I shoot him from my window sill (as I from time to time do with bunnies and the wrong race of squirrel), is that “self-defense” or a “mistake” or “poor judgment” or manslaughter?
To complicate the matter. My “yard” is five acres of woods and I see deer in our yard from time to time. Perhaps the gentleperson I shoot is merely a “cofused hunter.”
On the other hand, though my neighbors all seem kind and sensible and well-behaved, and most of the people on the island where I live seem law-abiding and well-behaved, there are meth labs out here and reports of crimes. Just the other day as I drove to the gym, a sheriff’s car went past me (half a mile from our home) with lights flashing and sirens blaring. What was that all about? Should I be very worried? Should I start taking pre-emptive strikes. Should I get my wife a serious gun instead of a mere pellet rifle?
My wife has a very serious temper. As you can imagine. Suppose you were married to me?
Report comment to moderator
Another FAQ asks: “Should I have sex with my partner?” The answer? “There is no ‘should’ when it comes to sex.”
Well good grief!
Would you have rather they had answered: “Yes, you should!”
Because, in honesty, that is the message they are hearing drummed into them from peers and the media.
So let’s look at the whole answer in that context
So here’s the key phrase, remember again, in the context that kids feel they are under peer and media pressure:
It’s OK to decide you aren’t ready- there are many other ways to enjoy your time together.
And it emphasizes that IF you do, then be safe.
A much more complete answer than just screaming “NO” and thinking that will be enough to stop them.
Report comment to moderator
Roy Clay:
You go out of your way to show us how “complete” their answer is, and then stereotypically compare it to the “incomplete” answer of just screaming no. I actually don’t think their answer is “complete” at all. Here’s a Christian answer that is more complete:
Sex is a good gift from God, a wonderful gift to a husband and wife to show their love to each other, come together in unity, and reproduce children. God is the one who created that good gift, and He has given it within certain boundaries, committed marriage between a man and a woman. Outside those boundaries, sex doesn’t have commitment, and at least one partner will probably end up being rejected at some point, after forming an uncommitted one-flesh relationship. Sex without commitment is especially hard on women. (And here what one says will vary depending whether the young person is male or female.) Sex without commitment brings broken hearts, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy that doesn’t take place within a marriage relationship (and point out that such pregnancy may end with the poverty of the child or even the parents’ deliberate killing of that child in the womb).
God has given human beings two good options. One is marriage with sexual pleasure, the responsibilities and joys of children, and family life. The other is sexual chastity without the commitments or pleasures that come with family life. Trying to combine the two, by living together out of marriage or bearing children outside of marriage is a third way that doesn’t lead to satisfaction or joy, and it disobeys the God who made you.
(Isn’t that more complete than just “screaming no,” which obviously no one actually does? And it’s a whole lot better answer than whether or not teens “feel ready” to have sex.)
Report comment to moderator
I was reading this passage of Scripture in the last few days. This should come as no surprise to those of us who are Believers in Jesus Christ.
The last verse makes one do more than pause:
The children are encouraged to sin, to choose evil, what can we expect from people who have turned their back on GOD, if EVEN they ever bothered to read HIS Word.
Report comment to moderator
Is that grounds for a lawsuit?
Great separation of church and state.
If they had used the name Muhammed instead of Jesus, would there be death threats?
Report comment to moderator
Sounds like the site was written by gays for possible adult/child relationships. I hope someone is monitoring the site–like the police.
It’s really sad when gays control what you are allowed to think. Sorry, but if you’re are gay and you don’t want to be gay now, too bad you’ll just have to accept who we say you are. We did give you guidelines to help you know if you are gay.
I wonder how many read their guidelines and sort of ended up gay.
Report comment to moderator
Helooo, Thomas… calling Thomas…
“I’m not sure how many publicly funded school sex ed programs encourage teen sex, and I’m not sure I believe any do, but I’m open to being better informed.”
This thread sez hai.
Report comment to moderator
Probably everything in comment #8 is also compatible with evolutionary thinking (both kinds of evolutionary thinking).
Report comment to moderator
#10 News2me – you asked if it was grounds for a lawsuit. If AFY receives public funds to support advocacy concerning “Faith & Spirituality” with “discussions about the ‘flawed interpretations of Christ’s teachings’ when it comes to homosexuality,” then yes, that would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.
Report comment to moderator
Marcia says: Personally I think it’s time for Connecticut parents to exercise some real common sense and tell the state that it has no business directly or indirectly advising teens—or anyone else—in matters of sex, gender identity, or faith.
And I say, Marcia, you’re dead wrong. The state has a vested interest in making sure that its citizens know the consequenses of sexual activity. Why? Because if it doesn’t, it has to support a LOT more unsupported and unwanted children, who, if not adopted into loving homes early on, often become less-than-productive adults.
News2Me’s comment at 11 is preposterous on its face, since it’s unsupported by any of the linked material and she doesn’t bother to quote any, anyway. All 11 is is a repetition of a tired and long discredited trope that “ZOMG TEH GAYZZ ARE COMING 4 YR KIDZ!!11!0!1″
Make that preposterous, defamatory, and perhaps worst of all – boring.
Report comment to moderator
@ TJS re: 12: I say hai too. But Marcia’s out-of-context quotes are a lot like the game of telephone and are not particularly edifying. RoyClay addressed this at 7.
Report comment to moderator
A summary from the website: Parental support for school-based sex education is overwhelmingly positive. Over the past 20 years, in survey after survey, local, state or national, 80 to 85 percent of parents indicate they want their children to receive comprehensive, medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education. Parents see such courses and content as supplementing, not supplanting, their discussions at home. They say that their children need both to be taught about delaying the onset of intimate sexual relationships until they are mature and responsible and also given the information and skills they need to use condoms and contraception when they do choose to become sexually active. It’s not either/or, but both.
Game over on abstience-only, whether it gets Congressional funding or not.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!