Heritage: Twelve Anti-Family Gifts from Congress

[spursncowboys]

The OP focused on the the progressive "attack" on family values; I attacked the defense of the same, as it is commonly understood. Suggesting that the character and stability of American families depends on politicians is patronizing and wrong.

Yes, liberals push their values with our tax dollars. Sadly conservatives, when in power, do much the same, rather than getting government the eff out of our lives.

I thought the problems was the values. That's what the OP was about. You seem to be moving the goal posts.

So instead of focusing your post on 90% of the op, or focus on one of the 12 bullets, you went after one sentence from the intro?

[spursncowboys]

Um, I'm all about teaching kids the dangers of sex. Abstinence-only education is NOT. It provides kids with misinformation and lies, rather that useful information like how to properly use a condom and the wide variety of birth control and contraceptive options that are out there.

Teenagers are certainly capable of NOT having sex, and most importantly of making their minds up about whether they want to. Some teenagers choose not to have sex until later...most of those wait until college/early 20's, not marriage/monogamy. A small minority wait till marriage/monogamy.

It's just not realistic to expect MOST teenagers to wait, because most are not going to. Whether you provide them with accurate, life-saving information or not.

What lies and misinformation does it have? Why do kids need to learn how to put on a condom, on tax payer money? You say that it is the kids choice to whether they want to have sex and then you say an abstinence program shouldn't be apart of sex ed. Sex ed was never supposed to be a how to. What studies do you have to show about the abstinence programs not lowering the sexual promiscuity of the students? You are talking out of your ass and using it as facts.

[Wild Cobra]

Why don't we just all accept the fact that government is too big, and wants to infringe on us too much.

We need to tell them to stop and let us live free lives. Stop doing things that are best decided by the state or local communities.

[Supergirl]

What lies and misinformation does it have? Why do kids need to learn how to put on a condom, on tax payer money? You say that it is the kids choice to whether they want to have sex and then you say an abstinence program shouldn't be apart of sex ed. Sex ed was never supposed to be a how to. What studies do you have to show about the abstinence programs not lowering the sexual promiscuity of the students? You are talking out of your ass and using it as facts.

http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01...in-the-coffin/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._sexed20m.html

That's just the first couple articles that come up with a little Google search. It's pretty well-do ented that abstinence-only sex ed is a complete waste of money and time because it does not do what it is supposed to: curb teen pregnancy rates and prevent the spread of disease. On the other hand, comprehensive sex ed has been known to do both those things. Go figure.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01...in-the-coffin/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._sexed20m.html

That's just the first couple articles that come up with a little Google search. It's pretty well-do ented that abstinence-only sex ed is a complete waste of money and time because it does not do what it is supposed to: curb teen pregnancy rates and prevent the spread of disease. On the other hand, comprehensive sex ed has been known to do both those things. Go figure.

All you have to do is tell kids not to have sex and they won't. Kids are really good listeners and always listen to their parents.

[Winehole23]

So instead of focusing your post on 90% of the op, or focus on one of the 12 bullets, you went after one sentence from the intro?

That one sentence from the intro is the ideological thrust. The reason it gives to dislike the twelve bullet points is that they're "anti-family".

So yes, I attacked the framing and not the bullet points. Is there some kind of problem with that?

[Wild Cobra]

It's pretty well-do ented that abstinence-only sex ed is a complete waste of money and time because it does not do what it is supposed to: curb teen pregnancy rates and prevent the spread of disease. On the other hand, comprehensive sex ed has been known to do both those things. Go figure.

First off, any time the word "comprehensive" is used by a liberal politician, expect the worse.

IMO:

I think we will all agree that abstinence only training is as bad as not teaching abstinence. Age appropriate sex education I don't think is the problem. However, there is too much that doesn't need to be taught that is, and to ages many consider inappropriate. The biggest problem I see is when the teaching infringes on the morals of the families. If a family wants no sex education taught, then there are options available for that, but then the peer pressure/outcast problems occur.

What I have a problem is the schools going too far in sex education and making it sound like condoms prevent pregnancy and disease. All forms of birth control have an unacceptable failure rate even when used properly. Worse yet, how may people use them properly?

Kids need to be persuaded that sex is not proper until marriage, or when they can take on the responsibility of being a parent. Abortion can be mentioned, but then the moral ramifications of using it as birth control need to be discussed also.

Pregnancy without marriage used to be a social stigma. This prevented more problems that acceptance does. Our society is spiraling out of control in moral values, in so many ways. I just hope God doesn't make me live long enough to see the destruction of this nation.

[baseline bum]

What I have a problem is the schools going too far in sex education and making it sound like condoms prevent pregnancy and disease. All forms of birth control have an unacceptable failure rate even when used properly.

An HIV infection rate of <1% per year among couples with one partner known to have HIV is pretty convincing to me that the failure rate for condoms with regard to STD transmission is unacceptably over-hyped. That's pretty low when you're already conditioning on having one party as a carrier of the virus, considering you're most likely talking about a minimum 50 lays (but probably more like 100+ on average).

Condom Facts and Figures
August 2003

Condoms are a key part of HIV prevention, as is abstinence and being faithful to one’s partner. All these three strategies make up the “ABC” of HIV/AIDS prevention. With consistent and correct use of condoms, there is a near zero risk of HIV. Studies on couples where one partner is infected show that with consistent condom use, HIV infection rates for the uninfected partner are below 1% per year.

Condoms are also effective barriers against other diseases such as herpes simplex, hepa is B, chlamydia and gonorrhea. They also prevent pregnancy, although not as effectively. However, pregnancies reported with condom use are often due to user failure rather than product failure.

High rates of condom use have resulted in dramatic drops in the numbers of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). After condom use rates rose among Thai sex workers from 14% in 1989 to 94% five years later, STIs dropped from 400,000 to 30,000 per year. Condom use in Thailand and Cambodia has resulted in drops of HIV rates of more than 80% since the peak of the epidemics.

Nearly everywhere in Asia, more efforts are needed to promote condoms – they may be unavailable or costly, and there may be little public knowledge about their benefits. In many areas, the majority of sex workers are not using condoms consistently. Another study in rural China a few years ago found only 12% knew condoms helped prevent disease. Making

Even countries that have heavily promoted condoms still need to do more. In Thailand for example, where condom accessibility and knowledge is good, the use of condoms is still not as high during casual sex encounters or among hilltribes such as the Hmong or Lahu.

The supply of condoms nearly always falls far below the need across Asia. In China, for example, more than a billion condoms are needed for the sex industry, using the official estimate of six million sex workers. Currently, only about 1.5 billion condoms are produced in the country. In Myanmar, about 50 million condoms per year are required if all needs were met for family planning and disease prevention – several times as many as there are available.

Condoms can be promoted by governments through a variety of ways:

* Subsidize the costs of condoms, or lower their price by reducing taxes on them
* Make condoms more convenient to get hold of, by making them available in more stores, pharmacies, truck stops, bars and hotels
* Make condoms more socially acceptable so people feel less embarrassed to buy them
* Improve public knowledge about the benefits of condoms and how to use them

The way in which condoms are made accessible has a great impact on whether or not they are acquired.

Vending machines can allow easy access. There may also be a need to market condoms to make them more attractive. Many men may make excuses not to wear condoms. However, why people don't use them and why they say they don't use them may be two different issues. They may complain condoms inhibit sexual gratification and interfere with intercourse, but in reality may be too embarrassed to use them or associate them with "dirty" sex.

Knowledge abour how to use a condom is often poor. To use a condom correctly:

* Make sure that the condom is of good quality and not past its shelf-life
* Open the packet carefully so the condom does not tear
* Squeeze the the tip of the condom before unrolling it on to the erect penis
* After ejaculation, hold the rim of the condom and pull the penis out when still hard
* Do not use oil-based lubricants (stick to water-based such as KY Jelly).

Worse yet, how may people use them properly?

If only there was some way to educate people on use of contraceptives.

Kids need to be persuaded that sex is not proper until marriage, or when they can take on the responsibility of being a parent.

For an alleged libertarian, you sure like the government dictating social policy. Kids just need to be told the truth; you can't talk down to them and expect them to pay any attention.

Sex education should be able to be done easily in one day. You tell kids the truth:

• anal sex is extremely dangerous unprotected because anal tissue is so easily torn and can also cause wounds to the , thus allowing blood/blood and blood/semen to mix
• vaginal sex is still pretty risky unprotected
• condom use drastically reduces the passage of HIV and is extremely effective at stopping pregnancies (3% failure rate over a year for couples, according to the World Health Organization).
• HIV can be transmitted during oral sex if the person has cuts in his/her mouth
• The other STDs like Herpes, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, etc. are pretty easily passed through oral sex

If any parent has a problem with their kid being taught reality, of course give them the option to shelter their child from the evil truth.

[Wild Cobra]

An HIV infection rate of <1% per year among couples with one partner known to have HIV is pretty convincing to me that the failure rate for condoms with regard to STD transmission is unacceptably over-hyped. That's pretty low when you're already conditioning on having one party as a carrier of the virus, considering you're most likely talking about a minimum 50 lays (but probably more like 100+ on average).

Anyone accepting a near 1% rate of contracting such a thing deserve to die for stupidity.

Would you place your head in a guillotine if there was only a 1% chance someone would release the blade?

Would you play Russian Roulette with a 100 round revolver?

Is it right to take that gamble of having an unwanted baby?

[Wild Cobra]

For an alleged libertarian, you sure like the government dictating social policy. Kids just need to be told the truth; you can't talk down to them and expect them to pay any attention.

I agree the truth needs to be told. I never said otherwise. the dishonesty is when, in the teaching of sex education, it's described as safe. Sure, you may like the odds, but does that mean everyone does? Do you think the 14 yr. old that thought she was safe, is ready to have a baby if she is one of the lucky lottery winners of the <1% solution?

As for my libertarianism, that goes hand in hand with responsibility. Irresponsibility should not be supported by social welfare. I don't like the schools being dictated by the governments in the first place. I cannot disband the Department of Education, but I might be able to influence how tax dollars are spent that shouldn't be in the first place. Now if someone elses lack of responsibility impacts what my tax dollars are spent on, then it does give me cause to try to change it.

[ChumpDumper]

Anyone accepting a near 1% rate of contracting such a thing deserve to die for stupidity.

Would you place your head in a guillotine if there was only a 1% chance someone would release the blade?

Would you play Russian Roulette with a 100 round revolver?

Is it right to take that gamble of having an unwanted baby?

Have you used a condom when you didn't know the status of your partner?

Are you celibate now that you are single?

[baseline bum]

Anyone accepting a near 1% rate of contracting such a thing deserve to die for stupidity.

Would you place your head in a guillotine if there was only a 1% chance someone would release the blade?

Would you play Russian Roulette with a 100 round revolver?

Is it right to take that gamble of having an unwanted baby?

No, which is why I wouldn't someone who I knew had HIV. I find it kind of funny that you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of a conditional probability though.

[baseline bum]

As for my libertarianism, that goes hand in hand with responsibility. Irresponsibility should not be supported by social welfare. I don't like the schools being dictated by the governments in the first place. I cannot disband the Department of Education, but I might be able to influence how tax dollars are spent that shouldn't be in the first place. Now if someone elses lack of responsibility impacts what my tax dollars are spent on, then it does give me cause to try to change it.

Nothing you said goes hand in hand with libertarianism.

[greyforest]

11.Legalized medical marijuana. The bill gives D.C. the ability to use local funds to start and implement a medical marijuana program. This comes at a time when, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles is attempting to reel in its program. Medical marijuana dispensaries have become one of the fastest-growing industries in the city, with some 1,000 dispensaries cropping up since 2004.[3]

i'm sorry i'm still laughing at this. i wonder how many families have been destroyed directly from weed laws. probably millions.

[Spurminator]

They're coming for your children!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Won't someone please think of the children!

[admiralsnackbar]

When common disease-control measures are put in place, I can't feel that only the most paranoiac and lazy-minded rail against the imposed "strictures" of comprehensive sex-education.

Birth-control education both helps to curb the proliferation of incurable viruses like herpes, HPV, and HIV, not to mention lesser -- but serious-- infections like syphilis, gonorrhea, etc. In the case of the viruses, you're looking at citizens saved from a lifetime of expensive care for themselves and their children (often tax-payer funded), while in the case of bacterial infection prevention, you're simply looking at public moneys saved on citizens in scheduled "one-shot" ways.

There's no question that abstinence would be the best measure, but it doesn't work -- in sex, in drugs, in culturally "deviant" behaviour... you name it.

Legislating super-rational impulses like sexuality is a waste of money because sexuality cannot be diminished by condemnation, as time has proven time and again. Abstinence education has made HIV explode in Africa. EXPLODE.

The explanation of birth control to kids doesn't risk those who are committed to abtinence, only those who are already moved or given to engage in risky behavior to begin with. When you compare the cost of bith-control programs to orphanages and medical treatment for herpes-blinded children and HIV-positive kids, handing out condoms is, at most benign, and at least cost-effective. Why? Parents and individuals themselves are the only ones with any effect on the outcome of teenage lust. Legislating teen libidos is like putting gas on a fine. May that clash with beliefs of some? Sure. Do I, as a taxpayer feel bad about their moral outrage? Not a whit.

I wish I had the time to address how asinine and conveniently phrased every item in the OP wedge-issue-thon was posted, but this is all I can get done this morning.

Merry post X mas from mine to yours.

[Wild Cobra]

No, which is why I wouldn't someone who I knew had HIV. I find it kind of funny that you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of a conditional probability though.

You simply miss my point.

I don't believe it is the governments responsibility to dictate what is and is not taught in our schools.

I do believe it is improper to teach sex education in a manner that gives students a false sense of security.

I do not believe it is the public responsibility to pay for individuals who make bad choices in life. Personal responsibility means stay out of my wallet.

Nothing you said goes hand in hand with libertarianism.

Sure it does. I believe in state and local rights. Not nationalism, which you seem to. What you say goes with socialism, because you are saying I am wrong with personal responsibility. That means the tax payers pay the tab for these unwanted pregnancies.

I fail to see what I say disagrees with libertarianism. The part of libertarianism I respect is the freedoms as long as it doesn't infringe on others. If you say as a libertarian, I can not say people who end up on welfare for their actions is not libertarianism, I say you are wrong. To say I am wrong is to say libertarians are socialists.

I made that distinction clear from the start. Responsibility so that tax dollars are not used to support peoples bad choices.

[admiralsnackbar]

I do believe it is improper to teach sex education in a manner that gives students a false sense of security.

But certainly the answer cannot be to pretend children are not at risk, or to neglect to inform them how they can diminish their risk, can it?

Abstinence-teaching sounds like a good solution, but obviously -- empirically -- doesn't work, so something needs to give. A compromise is needed.

[Wild Cobra]

But certainly the answer cannot be to pretend children are not at risk, or to neglect to inform them how they can diminish their risk, can it?

Abstinence-teaching sounds like a good solution, but obviously -- empirically -- doesn't work, so something needs to give. A compromise is needed.

If you have actually read my posts, you see I never called for abstinence only teaching.

Where the did you get that idea?

I specifically said in my first post on the topic:

I think we will all agree that abstinence only training is as bad as not teaching abstinence.

Can you comprehend English?

[admiralsnackbar]

Tell you what, WC : when you bother to read my posts, I'll extend you the same courtesy, how's that? Just be glad I didn't rail on about poor wittle Joe McCarthy for no reason.

Here's the thing though: you say you don't preach abstinence, but you also favor a Libertarian self-reliance with respect to sexual conduct that doesn't draw from the public coffers. Isn't that just the accountant's version of saying you support abstinence? You think giving kids access to free contraception is in any way more expensive to the state than creating untold welfare families and sick people? Why is it so hard to accept that kids are going to the way the sun rises and the tides roll -- we're wired for that. Some more than others, I agree. But some every time.

[baseline bum]

You simply miss my point.

I don't believe it is the governments responsibility to dictate what is and is not taught in our schools.

I do believe it is improper to teach sex education in a manner that gives students a false sense of security.

I do not believe it is the public responsibility to pay for individuals who make bad choices in life. Personal responsibility means stay out of my wallet.

You're rationalizing an ends justify the means argument for having a government pushing a socially conservative agenda. There is absolutely nothing libertarian about that. I mean, here's your exact words:

Kids need to be persuaded that sex is not proper until marriage, or when they can take on the responsibility of being a parent.

You're playing both sides of the fence, one minute railing against government and then the next point saying since you pay taxes, they should push your dogma. And I did not miss your point, which seemed to be that you strawmanned an argument about conditional probabilities into one involving unconstrained probabilities.

I also find it insane that your main emphasis when talking about condom use is always their infallibility as opposed to the fact their use drops your chances of getting an STD by two orders of magnitude. No one claims its perfect, only that it's extremely effective. You're using the exact same techniques mouse uses when he rails against natural selection since it's not 100% bullet-proof.

Sure it does. I believe in state and local rights. Not nationalism, which you seem to. What you say goes with socialism, because you are saying I am wrong with personal responsibility. That means the tax payers pay the tab for these unwanted pregnancies.

What a joke. I believe in socialism because I think the actual stats should be taught and the moral judgments left to the individuals? My stance on sex education is far more libertarian than yours.

I fail to see what I say disagrees with libertarianism. The part of libertarianism I respect is the freedoms as long as it doesn't infringe on others. If you say as a libertarian, I can not say people who end up on welfare for their actions is not libertarianism, I say you are wrong. To say I am wrong is to say libertarians are socialists.

This quote of yours below goes completely against libertarianism.

Kids need to be persuaded that sex is not proper until marriage, or when they can take on the responsibility of being a parent.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's the thing though: you say you don't preach abstinence, but you also favor a Libertarian self-reliance with respect to sexual conduct that doesn't draw from the public coffers. Isn't that just the accountant's version of saying you support abstinence?

No. If the parents of children or the children can support their own unwanted child, then I say fine. I am entirely against social programs except for those who are handicapped in some form that keeps them from supporting themselves, or need short term assistance to get back on their feet. That's why we have programs like unemployment insurance.

You think giving kids access to free contraception is in any way more expensive to the state than creating untold welfare families and sick people?

If the community or state does so, then fine. Just get the federal government out of things that belong to the states.

Do you believe in States Rights at all?

Why is it so hard to accept that kids are going to the way the sun rises and the tides roll -- we're wired for that. Some more than others, I agree. But some every time.

I know that. I was like that myself.

Did you miss my point about properly teaching the ramification? Not giving children a sense of false security?

[Wild Cobra]

You're rationalizing an ends justify the means argument for having a government pushing a socially conservative agenda. There is absolutely nothing libertarian about that. I mean, here's your exact words:

Bull . I don't want a conservative or liberal agenda pushed.
[QUOTE=baseline bum;3945973]

Kids need to be persuaded that sex is not proper until marriage, or when they can take on the responsibility of being a parent.

No, you're right. I had a temporary brain cramp and forgot you liberals beielve in living off the generosity of the government. I also forgot that too many people now get married without the means to support themselves.

OK, you got me in forgetting how stupid you lib s are.

You're playing both sides of the fence, one minute railing against government and then the next point saying since you pay taxes, they should push your dogma.

Call it that if you want, but I do not believe that I shouldn't have a voice in saying my tax dollars are used for proper purposes, and not socialistic agendas. Should I be happy that we already have a larger government than what we should have because of socialism? I don't want to see socialism increase, I want to see it decrease.

Again, are you claiming as a libertarian, I should be a socialist?

And I did not miss your point, which seemed to be that you strawmanned an argument about conditional probabilities into one involving unconstrained probabilities.

Sorry you don't understand. Not my problem.

I also find it insane that your main emphasis when talking about condom use is always their infallibility as opposed to the fact their use drops your chances of getting an STD by two orders of magnitude.

I am not saying they don't reduce risks of pregnancy or disease. I am completely aware they do.

Again, do you know what a false sense of security is? If we have to endure sex education that goes beyond what some parents want, then at least be honest with the kids, of what the ramifications are when they do fail. Is that asking too much?

No one claims its perfect, only that it's extremely effective. You're using the exact same techniques mouse uses when he rails against natural selection since it's not 100% bullet-proof.

We are talking about small risks that aren't small at all if someone contracts AIDS, Herpes, or gets pregnant. These things change a person's entire life.

What a joke. I believe in socialism because I think the actual stats should be taught and the moral judgments left to the individuals? My stance on sex education is far more libertarian than yours.

Well, there are different types of libertarians. You must be the type that says " the consequences."

[admiralsnackbar]

All I'll say about state rights is that any state that repeatedly embraces failed policies is doomed to failure. Ideology is one thing. Reality quite another.

Did you miss my point about properly teaching the ramification? Not giving children a sense of false security?

First, you'd have to prove teachers are teaching a false sense of security. It wasn't all that long ago that I took sex ed, which consisted of week-long segments devoted to the horrors of each of the STDs, along with some glossing over the intricacies of intercourse in order to light upon the terrors of teen pregnancy. There certainly weren't any kama sutra i'm-ok-you're-ok shenanigans going on, just a nondescript cardboard box of condoms on the teacher's desk, where they were sure to not be pocketed. And surprise surprise, two girls in my class got pregnant. Oops.

So whereof comes this false sense of security you so vehemently claim is being foisted on the young? Or is it just that young people want to , and many are simply too young and intellectually ill-equipped to grasp the ramifications of their actions no matter how expertly they are instructed? Anti-tobacco brainwashing starts earlier and lasts longer than sex ed, yet some of these poor saps start smoking anyway. Viva la imbecilité.