abstinence only vs comprehensive sex education (liberal lies about sex)

[Foroneworldunited]

ONE WORLD UNITED

[vanishing446]

The point of sex education isn't to stop people from having sex, its to educate them and show them how to have safe sex. Its not to stop them from having sex. Also, Nerd subculture is associated with sex? You have to be kidding me.

[zelvadrian]

@vanishing446 If people like YOU say that kids are going to boink no matter what, then why teach ANYTHING?  And the only safe sex is abstinence until marriage

[vanishing446]

@zelvadrian The reason you teach them is so that they know about STDs and Pregnancy so that they can decide for themselves if thats what they want to deal with. You can't force people not to do things in the privacy of their home, unless you want a police state. And what if one doesn't want to get married? Just because you believe in god doesn't mean that everyone else should live their lives like they do.

[zelvadrian]

@vanishing446 It is pop culture that is imposing its ways on people like me today; not the other way around.

[Sonicisbadazz]

@zelvadrian I'm not really sure how it's doing that if you're still a virgin and making videos defending your views.

Nobody wants comprehensive to skip over the potential heartbreak from having sex too soon. We all know that can happen. But if you think waiting until marriage is somehow going to prevent that pain if you later get a divorce, I think you're living in a dreamworld. Pain is a natural part of human life. Sooner or later we have to learn to deal with it anyway.

[Sonicisbadazz]

@zelvadrian Define "safe." If you get married and your wife has AIDS, is that going to constitute "safe sex"? What do you mean when you say "safe"?

The potential for heartbreak and disappointment is just as possible IN marriage as out of it, so I'm not sure how emotionally it's "safe" to wait until marriage for sex. (Not that I support people doing it all over the place. I don't.) And physically speaking, that depends on protection and what your partner has STD-wise.

So really, NO sex is safe!

[zelvadrian]

@Sonicisbadazz If we weren't a slut society, very few people would have AIDS so marrying a woman with AIDS would be highly unlikely. Also, if you are against doing it all over the place, then we agree!

[Sonicisbadazz]

@zelvadrian You're using basic rhetoric to argue against something more complicated. Virtually NOBODY wants people doing it all over the place. It's vicious slander to suggest liberals DO want that.

How about addressing my points? You're saying the only safe sex is sex within marriage, but I've shown that it's not guaranteed to be physically safe nor emotionally safe, so wouldn't it be more accurate to say there's not such thing as safe sex PERIOD? (Unlikely does not = guaranteed)

[YourEverydayMistake]

So, to put my explanation in a short, simple way that you can understand: Not every teenager is going to be abstinent, so you need to protect everyone with comprehensive methods. If a teenager wants to abstain- feel free. But don't force YOUR moral opinions on them, lest you look like a complete idiot. And calling people who have sex "boinkers" just makes your argument sound like a half-assed excuse of why YOU haven't had sex yet.

[zelvadrian]

@YourEverydayMistake If your agenda was "comprehensive" then you'd get into all of the heartbreak and pain from teen sex!! I'm not forcing anything on them! I'm just pointing out liberal lies and I have done TONS of research.

[YourEverydayMistake]

Have you ever ACTUALLY researched sexual education at any point in your life? Nevermind, bad question- it's clear you haven't, you're just making it up as you go along. Look at the statistics before you talk. The success rates of abstinence education are minimal at best, and most abstinence programs actually include misleading statistics about contraceptives. Meanwhile, comprehensive has shown success in lowering rates of STI transmission and underage pregnancy.