The Volokh Conspiracy

While Walter Olson is probably right that the Bush Administration is pushing "abstinence only" beyond its fair meaning, but he is not right to accuse the administration of "confusion" about federal law in this area. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, 1 USC 7, states:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

The regulations that Walter Olson criticizes are simply quoting a federal statute currently on the books. Bad policy, maybe, but no "confusion."

To the extent that the guidelines expand the Defense of Marriage Act's definition of "marriage" into the only allowable, legal definition -- completely ignoring state law to the contrary -- they're misleading.

And one other weird element of the above-quoted text: "Sexual activity refers to any kind of sexual stimulation . . . between two persons." What doesn't this include? Kissing? "Second base"? Just one more area in which the Administration has acted in bad faith--and incidentally wasted a lot of taxpayer money.

Which is too bad, since a more modest (and honest) abstinence program, simply letting HS kids know that they're probably too young for intercourse and urging them to wait a couple of years, might do some good.

As far as the abstinence program "cutting loose" from any public health rationale, let's not forget that many people, reasonably so, believe abstinence until marriage not only to be the best for people's physical health, but mental, emotional health as well.

But I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the people, including most mental health professionals, in this country, do not. This is nothing but a very small minority trying to impose their warped, stilted, view of sexuality on a majority that is not buying it. What does this ultra-orthodox view of sexuality say to all those kids of divorced parents who may be in sexual relationships. Are they supposed go home and condemn their parents for being fornicators?

I wonder what would happen if I called someone else's sexuality "warped" or "stilted."

I didn't call anyone's sexuality "warped" or "stilted", I called "view[s] on sexuality" warped and stilted. There is a huge difference.

ahhh... huge difference. I see. So what happens if I call someone's VIEWS on sexuality warped? Would that be ok then?

Of course, it's my impression that there are no studies to suggest abstinence education of the sort being pushed by the right wing is effective at preventing kids from having sex, AND ESPECIALLY at encouraging them to have safe sex once they do.

Who here has actually had sex ed in school in the last decade? (Raises hand.) Luckily, I was at a private school, where they covered the basic mechanics of sex, the risks involved to your physical health, the emotional aspect, how to have safe sex/what constituted safe sex, told that contraceptives weren't 100% certain (only 99%!) and that abstinence is the only surefire way to avoid disease and pregnancy, encouraged not to be so immature as to have sex due to some sense of peer pressure, and that it was our choice to do what we wanted when we felt we were ready. That's an effective message, I think, certainly helped by the fact that it was supported by my parents, and quite different from the "abstinence education" method, which seems like a shoddy way of fighting the spread of communicable diseases since it doesn't actually provide you with a complete set of tools to do so.

I think the point my sex-ed teacher made was along the lines of this:

"Sex with a condom is like wearing a rubber glove...you don't feel as much. So you should wait until you're married so you can get the full pleasure without a condom."

Now that's compelling education!

Only the government would seek to define sex by regulation. I hope they complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, NEPA, etc., etc. And didn;t try any categorical exclusion BS under NEPA, because sex affects the population affects the environment. It should have been done with a full blown Enviro Impact Statement.

By the end of the rulemaking, it will have achieved its end of encouraging abstinence. Government intervention will have made sex so boring that for the first time in the history of the human race no one is interested.

The above discussion reminds me of the "would you sleep with me for a million dollars ... we've already established that, we're just working out a price" story.

Does anyone really believe that a govt that is empowered to do something (teach values in this case), will always do it the desired way.

Perhaps using schools for "social education" wasn't such a good idea. After all, different folks think that social education means something else.

Well, I really don't want to get into another discussion of who's "pushing" what... I just felt like pointing out the rather hostile tone of Freder's post.

Well, I do get hostile when the government tries to impose what is a distinctly minority view of what is unquestionably an issue of personal morality (which most of us should agree the government has no business having any opinion on--the private consensual sexual activities of adults).

Clayton is so unfairly maligned on this site it is amazing, even the way he was treated during his short residency was pretty grating.

Why shouldn't the government encourage private morality? Don't most "private" moralities eventually spill over to the public. It is amazing to watch however that what appears to be a very short period of time, that which used to be good and decent has become warped and stilted, and that which use to be considered damaging to oneself and others has become the paramount freedom. The most amazing thing is how few people choose to realize this is course of events is exactly the kind of behavior that is predicted.

Why shouldn't the government encourage private morality? Don't most "private" moralities eventually spill over to the public. It is amazing to watch however that what appears to be a very short period of time, that which used to be good and decent has become warped and stilted, and that which use to be considered damaging to oneself and others has become the paramount freedom.

What particular private morality should the government encourage? Mitt Romney is considering running for president. Do you want you want the private morality of a religion made up by some Vermont whackjob a hundred sixty years to become the official policy of the U.S. government? What if Tom Cruise became president? Do you really want us to have government pushing morality based on the ravings of a second-rate science fiction author?

One side of this debate is being silenced because the rules of engagement are being written by the other side.

Is this like the 'teach the controversy' argument put forward by the adherents of 'Intelligent Design'? The response here is identical to the response there: there is no controversy. Practically no one not servient to a fringe ideology supports such a view; its logical underpinnings are nonexistent and unsupported by either scientific research or lay intuition.

I would go beyond Freder and assert that it can scarcely be called a moral issue rather than a sectarian one. And I think we can all agree that the government should never be in the business of promoting sectarian viewpoints, particularly when devoid of secular value.

It is amazing to watch however that what appears to be a very short period of time, that which used to be good and decent has become warped and stilted, and that which use to be considered damaging to oneself and others has become the paramount freedom.

It would be my guess that prohibitions against premarital sex have largely been ignored where young people have not married as adolescents. And this when the specter of damnation had a much tighter grip on the minds of the people than it does now. In other words, however 'good and decent' it may be, it has never been anything more than an unworkable ideal; its only abiding contribution to the sexual lives of teenagers has been to make their sexual lives more confused, haphazard, secretive and guilt-ridden.

But this is all speculation and opinion, which is worthless. Can anyone on either side of the argument produce links to the effects (or lack thereof) of abstinence education? Does it serve the secular purpose it claims to, or does it have little value outside its crypto-Biblical underpinnings?

Clayton is so unfairly maligned on this site it is amazing, even the way he was treated during his short residency was pretty grating.

No, he pretty much maligned himself. His obsession with his belief that eating shit is a regular part of male homosexual culture and his tendency to get increasingly angry until he starts saying things like "now you're arguing like a homosexual" really don't do him any credit.

My response whenever confronted with an ethics expert's lecture is to raise my hand and ask if it's ever okay to lie.

I hope this program doesn't prohibit shacking up with your girlfriend, by the way.

Perhaps that could be formulated as another question.

In any case, mocking is the way to go, here.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK! Just when you think nothing could be more stupid than "the war on drugs", Voila! Sorta reminds me of Orwell's anti-sex league in "1984".

they are free to go to a different school if they don't like the message taught in public schools.

What exactly is your definition of "free"? 20K+ a year?

I hate it when regulations are drafted imprecisely.

Exactly my point. Absent other guidance, though, a textualist might say that the drafters could have said "two or more" and didn't.

That this is the type of absurdity this sort of morality legislation leads to makes me agree with Ron and lee above: the propert response is mockery.

There's a lot of philosophical speculation in the preceeding comments. But how does sex-ed really work in the real world?
If abstinence-only delays sexual activity by about a year, that's still much better than the "values neutral" sex "education" espoused by Planned Parenthood who is the biggest purveyor of sex-ed programs other than the abstinence-only advocates. Before they stopped taking post-education surveys a few years ago, their follow-ups indicated that their "values neutral" program actually
increased the rates of sexual activity, STD's and teen-age pregnancies over the rates experienced by groups of teen-agers who had no formal sex ed whatsoever. So this is better than abstinence-only approach?

From another viewpoint, a few years ago my wife, who is an ER nurse, had to explain to a young woman who was a college student that she was pregnant. Which, according to the young woman couldn't be because she and her fiance always stopped short of "real" sexual intercourse, or done an "alternative." Yes, her hymen was intact. But it was a real baby she delivered a couple of hours later. It was not a case of strong denial, her doctor who had treated her for gastrintestinal inflammation and bloat only a month earlier also believed her when she said she "hadn't had sex." According to some of the critics of the above quoted regulations, she hadn't had sex, either. But she was pregnant, nonetheless.

Critics who scoff at this definition of sex in the regulations forget that this was actually the socially accepted definition up until the early part of the 20th century. It didn't work perfectly, but from my far from scientific or statistically valid observations of those who don't generally agree with such a definition, it works better than the more "liberated" and "modern" approach.

Speaking of inflamatory rhetoric...

Fisbane wrote:

I hate it when regulations are drafted imprecisely.

Exactly my point. Absent other guidance, though, a textualist might say that the drafters could have said "two or more" and didn't.

That this is the type of absurdity this sort of morality legislation leads to makes me agree with Ron and lee above: the propert response is mockery.

We'll have to interpret as best we can. I think that it depends on what is contact with what and when. Some forms of the daisy chain might be okay, I think. :-D

"One French kiss before marriage and you're doomed to a miserable AIDS-ravaged death"

Caricature much? Kids will be kids. A little experimentation of that sort is probably healthy. No one is coming out against letting teen-agers make out. Except the nonexistent extremists that exist in the minds of the far left.

Some have articulated one danger of abstinence-only indoctrination (it's hard to call it education, since it withholds so much information). As Shangui says "while they lose their virginity and average of about a year later than other students, are more likely to have unprotected sex when they do."

The other side is increased divorce. Why is it that the Bible Belt states have the highest divorce rates? Simple: Adolescents see marriage as a license to have sex, so they marry too early and too quickly, then end up divorcing, disrupting real families and real children. Abstinence-only education under these guidelines will only increase that problem.

Finally, I find it ironic that WPT tells the story of a college woman who thought she couldn't be pregnant, since there had never been penetration--somehow without realizing that this is a clear indictment of abstinence-only sex-education. Comprehensive sex-ed would have made it clear that pregnancy could happen without penetration.

My point was that SOMEONE has to decide what form of education is best for our society. School boards and legislatures (and to an extent, Presidents) seem to be the lesser of two evils. In order to take them out of the process, the Courts step in and say what can or can't be taught. I never intentionally implied that the Supreme Court would be "making homosexuality compulsory," and I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

My "feigned surprise" was neither feigned nor surprise. It was just a comment on a trend I've noticed that's been going on for a long time. Believe me, there is nothing disingenuous about my concern.

"Mitt Romney is considering running for president. Do you want you want the private morality of a religion made up by some Vermont whackjob a hundred sixty years to become the official policy of the U.S. government?"

Are Romney's attempts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as well as oppose bias and intolerance directed at gays and lesbians generally considered the "private morality of a religion made up by some Vermont whackjob?"

I'm just waiting for Judge Reinhardt to prohibit a student from wearing a T-shirt saying "Fornication is shameful" in a health education class because it constitutes a "verbal assault[] that may destroy the self-esteem of our most vulnerable teenagers and interfere with their educational development."

Daniel Chapman:

My point was that SOMEONE has to decide what form of education is best for our society. School boards and legislatures (and to an extent, Presidents) seem to be the lesser of two evils. In order to take them out of the process, the Courts step in and say what can or can't be taught. I never intentionally implied that the Supreme Court would be "making homosexuality compulsory," and I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

I was just reacting to the plain language of what you wrote: "Now what happens if the Supreme Court tells us we all have to obey the ACLU's vision of sexual morality?" and I honestly thought you meant that literally--that some Supreme Court would mandate that all US citizens had to obey the ACLU's vision of sexual moality (whatever that is). Sorry I missed the context that would have made it mean something different.

But as to the point you meant, I've never seen the courts "step in and say what can or can't be taught." I've only ever seen the courts respond to lawsuits by parents disputing regulations, then weigh whether the regulation accords or conflicts with existing laws. Sometimes these suits are from parents who want more restrictions on sex-related education (like recent cases in Massachusetts) and sometimes less. Sometimes the case goes in favor of the parents and sometimes in favor of the schoolboard/legislature/president--regardless of which side brings it. Sometimes the cases are decded well and sometimes not. Each side in this debate can point to a handful of cases that went against their interest and try to pretend it's a trend of discrimination against them. But overall, the results of the court challenges have seemed to steer a middle course. Am I missing something?

wm13 - The rule has to do with "sexual stimulation," and lots of things that don't involve the sex organs can sexually stimulate.

Dale - I'm unconvinced taht this is a "Biblical" definition of sexuality. Where does the Bible say "no second base until marriage"?

Something that has yet to be quoted, yet, I think holding the most weight is that little thing called the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .

This, I think to some degree at least, not only dictates against saying religion X is the official religion and religion Y is prohibited, but also, to some degree dictates against creating law as reflected in that same religion.

Also, this nation was not built by Christians, for Christians. This nation was built by reasoned men for all men regardless of religion. For one, Jefferson was by far not a Christian as one, today would classify a Christian. He believed in Jesus only to the extent that the teachings thereof were the morals by which to live. As to dictating religious standards Jefferson said

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson

The free exercise of intercourse between consenting adults cannot, in anyway be deemed injurious to another person. These activities ought to be up to the individual to determine whether or not they are in-line with their own views of morality.

As far as teaching our students, I do not believe we have a right to teach rules of morality on anyone. There is a difference between the example of smoking, drunk driving, and saving the environment. Obviously, the later 2 have direct negative impacts on others. The drunk driver who hits and kills a child is not acting in a way injurious to himself, and therefore it is the responsibility of society to curb this behavior. Society cannot prevent one from drinking, nor can they prevent one from driving for merely consuming alcohol. But, when that consumption reaches the degree of impairment that leads to injury or death to another, it becomes a risk to others; thus, it is under the realm of the government.

As to saving the environment, no matter your views on global warming, all individuals with any sense of logic are able to see the injurious affects of pollution-- at least some types of pollution. The reason for requiring emissions standards is not to ease global warming, but is to prevent many toxins from entering the air and causing breathing problems for all residents of the area. This is a public good by definition.

Smoking can go either way; one can argue that the second hand smoke is in fact injurious to others, thus, can be regulated. I agree with this argument to the degree that it is up to the community to decide-- not the federal government (which is how it is regulated). However, not banning smoking doesn't mean you cannot speak of the dangers of smoking. Telling people not to smoke because it can cause lung cancer is not the same as telling people smoking is wrong; therefore, you are not to do it.

Similarly, if schools were to teach that abstinence is best because of the risk of pregnancy and disease, it would be ok. However, for the schools to say practice abstinence because sex is bad unless in the case of marriage is not ok. There is a difference; this is a moral guideline that which it is not the school's responsibility or authority to teach. Parents and religious leaders serve this role, not public school teachers. This is the type of moral discipline spoken of by Jefferson. Not that Jefferson saw this "sexual revolution;" but that Jefferson anticipated the family to instill moral views on children, not the government.

Furthermore, sexual activity includes genital contact and any sexual stimulation. Stimulation can be defined as:

Any stimulating information or event; acts to arouse action

Does this, therefore, include words spoken that may cause arousal? This seems to be a bit far-fetched in defining sexual activity. I am not necessarily fighting for the Bill Clinton definition of sex; but, this is going way too far. I do not see why what I learned about 10 years ago is not sufficient.

We were told sex causes pregnancy and many diseases can be transmitted through sexual contact, including but not limited to intercourse. Condoms were the best form of protection against disease and pregnancy. They were, however not 100% effective. The only 100% effective way to stay safe was abstinence. Therefore, you should, in order to prevent disease and pregnancy practice abstinence. If you were going to ignore this; use a condom.

Why are we so repressed a society that this is no longer acceptable? Why do we force moral beliefs on others? Whether it is the majority view or the minority view does not matter; the minority is to be protected from the majority, just as the majority ought to be protected from the minority. An issue so sensitive as ensuring the health and welfare ought to be based on science and logic; not religious or political beliefs.

These counrty was founded by Christians, for Christians. If you don't like it, move to Iran.

Mullah Smithy has obliterated the unintentional comedy scale.

Maybe we should create a word for this; just so we can distinguish this type of perverted mess from the loving theology that the rest of us normal, God-loving Christian people partake in? Something along the lines of "Christiano-Fascism"?

And does Jesus really require the power of the United States government? Give me a break. This is just (some) of our churches being lazy; and refusing to take individual responsibility for their own failures. They're is just lobbying for a government handout. And a second dose of irony.

wm13, if that were the case then why did the author of this language specifically write "genital contact or sexual stimulation"? It would seem to me that the intent was to include things other than just the sex organs.

Well, Saint (and others), under your interpretation, the words "genital contact" are entirely superfluous, since that is obviously a subset of "sexual stimulation."

I have set forth the proper interpretation. People who aren't using standard canons of construction, which is most of the people here, are just playing silly word games. In fact, I have to believe that most of the comments about the wording of the regulations aren't being written by people with law degrees. Is there someone in the group who believes that they can write any document directing future behavior (from legislation to loan agreements) that can't be misinterpreted by someone who is wilfully trying to do so? The impossibility of that enterprise is maybe the most important thing I learned in law school.

wm13 - I don't have a law degree, but exclusio unius ex exclusio alterus cuts the opposite way from the canon you've cited. The whole point is that sexual stimulation is different from genital contact, but your interpretation says it's the same thing.

In any case, not all genital contact is sexual stimulation, unless "genital contact" (implausibly) means "two people's genitals contacting each other" rather than "one person contacting the genitals of another person."

I was scared the first time I had sex...I was all alone...My daughters a great kid..in highschool she was voted most likely to conceive..

These counrty was founded by Christians, for Christians. If you don't like it, move to Iran.

Smithy

Of course, the country was founded [in large part] by deists and unitarians who explicitly disavowed doing it *for* Christians only; the intense linking of Americanness with Christianity postdates the founding.

Jacob T. Levy

Professor Levy is right. I should note that anyone interested in the scholarly case for the religious views of the Founders should check out my blogs; this is one of my specialties.

What do you call a wasteful government program which ignores established science and promotes an unrealistic, hypocritical, even absurd policy related to the sex lives of other people?

Food for the base.

Waiting until marriage is the ideal, not the practical result. We have speed limits, but expect people to go a couple miles over. It is hardly extreme to want people to limit their sexual activity during their lifetime to a single person who they eventually marry, and in fact would be quite beneficial in stopping AIDs and other diseases. It has also been the ideal for nearly two thousand years in Western society.

Most of the libertarians here oppose abstinence in itself. I don't see anything making this worse - telling consenting children rather than consenting adults not to engage in harmful behavior? For most of us, graduating from hs/college hardly confers the capability to judge any better than most children, and this is borne out by the number of adult single mothers. Not to mention that the majority of abortions are for people (in the libertarian view) old enough to decide if they should have sex.

Mike BUSL07:

Re your "Simpsons" reference, it was just perfect. Bravo.

Are Romney's attempts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as well as oppose bias and intolerance directed at gays and lesbians generally considered the "private morality of a religion made up by some Vermont whackjob?"

That's the problem with Mormonism. To outsiders they present such a reasonable and clean cut image. They call themselves "Christians" and most people who are unfamaliar with the cult actually think Mormons are Christians. But once you really talk to a Mormon and find out what you believe you realize that their religion has very little to do with Christianity at all. Their beliefs are every bit as bizarre and heretical as anything Tom Cruise spouts while he is jumping up and down on the couch on Oprah.

But back to the main subject. Do you really want your kids to learn that it is absolutely wrong to have sex outside of marriage? I don't have kids, but in between marriages (I'm on my second now), I dated a woman with high school aged kids. Are you seriously telling me you want the public high schools telling people that is wrong for two forty-year old consenting adults who care deeply for eachother to have sex. "Hey kids, your mom is a slut!". Gee, that is real sensitive to the children of divorce who are trying to deal with their parents dating.

Thanks Joseph - I try to conceal the extent to which I'm a Simpsons geek, but sometimes i just can't help it.

Unfortunately this is the kind of hijinks that really give the overall conservative movement the bad rep as a bunch of repressed, missionary position only, finger pointers.

I will be the first one to argue that a young teenager is usually not ready emotionally for a serious sexual relationship. Not to mention the other possible health consequences or the impact on ones future of an unwanted pregnancy. At the same time, abstinence only is akin to sticking ones head in the sand (aka South Park with Muhammed). At the other extreme, having pre-teens or teenagers practice using condoms by putting them on dildos or bananas in class seems to go to far in the other direction of explicity encouraging their sexualization. Let them enjoy the relative innocence of their teen years.

Logically the rationaly response would seem to be to emphasize that sexuality is an integral part of being human, while also emphsizing the the complexity and emotional/health/moral belief issues of a sexual/romantic relationship. In short, don't treat pre-teens and teenagers like little children, or full grown adults, but rather like burgeoning adults they are. Give them good and detailed information, discuss the issues in an open manner without explicitly encouraging sexual activity and let them make the decisions.

Unfortunately, you have the extremes on both sides that shout the loudest.

Unfortunately this is the kind of hijinks that really give the overall conservative movement the bad rep as a bunch of repressed, missionary position only, finger pointing nannies.

I will be the first one to argue that a young teenager is usually not ready emotionally for a serious sexual relationship. Not to mention the other possible health consequences or the impact on ones future of an unwanted pregnancy. At the same time, abstinence only is akin to sticking ones head in the sand (aka South Park with Muhammed). At the other extreme, having pre-teens or teenagers practice using condoms by putting them on dildos or bananas in class seems to go to far in the other direction of explicity encouraging their sexualization. Let them enjoy the relative innocence of their teen years.

Logically the rationaly response would seem to be to emphasize that sexuality is an integral part of being human, while also emphsizing the the complexity and emotional/health/moral belief issues of a sexual/romantic relationship. In short, don't treat pre-teens and teenagers like little children, or full grown adults, but rather like burgeoning adults they are. Give them good and detailed information, discuss the issues in an open manner without explicitly encouraging sexual activity and let them make the decisions.

Unfortunately, you have the extremes on both sides that shout the loudest.

Freder) If they care deeply, they should get married. If they don't care that much, then no they should not have sex.

Like I said, you have no right to lecture me.

It's not like 40 year olds are being forced to go to a class and told not to have sex.

No but their children are. And the vast majority of people in this country see nothing morally wrong with two unmarried consenting adults having sex, your morality notwithstanding. For the government to teach children a moral stance (and that is what it is, nothing more) that directly contradicts the established mores of the society at large, is just appalling. What kind of message does it send the children? That their parents are immoral sinners? Although you may agree with that sentiment, that is certainly not the prevailing view. What's next, the government teaching that divorce is wrong?

For Mike BUSL07:

"Because they never gave in to their throbbing biological urges."

From the Fluffy Bunny sex-ed film ("she faking it").

Of course, the country was founded [in large part] by deists and unitarians who explicitly disavowed doing it *for* Christians only; the intense linking of Americanness with Christianity postdates the founding.


Heck, today's evangelicals are very recent arrivals on the scene, historically speaking. They have very little in common with the view of the Founders.

At least you're honest, freder. I disagree completely.

Your loss.

And I hope when you say you disagree, you disagree with whether or not it is better to only have sex with one partner, not whether I am a moral person or not. To judge someone's morality who you have never met would be mighty unchristian of you.

I would like for you to prove to me or anyone who may agree with me why it's okay for teens to become pregnant. Granted, it's not like in the old days with the negative stigma, but was that necessarily a bad thing?

Where in this entire thread did I say teenage pregnancy was a good thing or it was okay for teens to be sexually active or pregnant? I never said any such thing and never came close to implying it.

This proposed regulation promotes the outrageous proposition that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. That is what I object to. Every point I made referred to sex between consenting adults, not teens. I agree wholeheartedly that the vast majority of high school students are too immature for sex and that high school sex education should carry that message. I did advocate sex between 40-year-olds, however I know a few of them who I consider too immature to have sex too.

I don't think that there is a magic age when you are suddenly "ready" to have sex, but just because you get married doesn't mean you are ready either. But for the government to adopt a position that sex is only acceptable within the confines of marriage is just perverse.

That would be under the often overlooked "promote abstinence" clause of Article I.

Remember when conservatives believed in a federal government of limited and enumerated powers?

"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more--it is intercourse." Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824). Trump.

What strikes me as bizarre is that religious people (and I consider myself part of that group) keep on pushing the definition of marriage as being a legal union between a man and a woman. But that's not what I believe my marriage to be. If I had forgone getting a marriage license, I would still believe myself to be married. It seems that the religious people in government are turning marriage into nothing more than a piece of paper. However, I'm married because my husband and I created a special covenant with G-d, not because some cranky government employee working at a California Courthouse issued me a piece of paper giving my husband and I a quick way to exchange legal rights. The state doesn't have the power to speak for G-d, therefore the state can offer nothing more than a civil union.

"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more--it is intercourse." Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824). Trump.

I bet you took a trip to Pennsylvania just so you could take a picture of the road sign that says "Intercourse 69"

"For the government to teach children a moral stance (and that is what it is, nothing more) that directly contradicts the established mores of the society at large, is just appalling."

Apparently, the voters disagree with you. Bush was elected, he gets to make the policy. Too bad for you.

"What kind of message does it send the children? That their parents are immoral sinners?"

Implicit in this statement is the assumption that their parents are regularly engaging in adultery and sex outside of marriage. Somehow, in the vast swath of Red State America, I doubt that's the case.

"Although you may agree with that sentiment, that is certainly not the prevailing view. What's next, the government teaching that divorce is wrong?"

Hopefully. Because it is.

Let's not forget that "abstinence only" is really just another name for "keep kids less informed."

Next, we hould push for biology free science classes! Oh.... wait.

FF:

I agree with you that the commandment against adultery has been broken since it and its nine companions were first brought down from Sinai. Jews and Christians alike believe that.

That doesn't mean that a large proportion of believers didn't (and still don't) take it and the other nine seriously and try to live according to those teachings.

To the extent they are successful in so doing, I think the point still remains.

While Christians do believe that all fall short of the laws and glory of God, most adherents do not believe they have a special license to break them.

Implicit in this statement is the assumption that their parents are regularly engaging in adultery and sex outside of marriage. Somehow, in the vast swath of Red State America, I doubt that's the case.

You really don't get out much, do you? And check the stats, Red State America, as a whole, has higher rates of all the bad stats (divorce, teen pregnancy, etc.) than blue states. That hot bed of liberalism, Massachussetts, has the lowest rate of divorce in the country. Generally, the Red States are not very good at practicing what they preach.

"That reducing the above-described contacts will reduce the risk of acquiring AIDS."

It will reduce a person's risk if they have less sex, yes.

"That having oral, anal or vaginal sex with individuals whose HIV status is unknown increases one's risk of acquiring AIDS."

Again, yes.

"That those faithfully following the tenets of at least three of the world's traditional religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) will reduce the contacts described above, and thus decrease the risks of acquiring AIDS. "

For them personally, yes.

But here's the kicker. Depending on the sexual habits of the population as a whole, it could actually make the rate of AIDS transmission go UP. And if prudish people all suddenly started having more sex, in many cases, the rate of AIDS transmission in the population as a whole would go down. Counter-intuitive? Sure. But still true. :)

Yeah, though I resent Freder's (usual) vitriol, I totally agree with him that sexual promiscuity is an indiviudual choice, and for a lot of people not a bad one.

Also, an interesting policy comparison can be drawn with the way we regulate the stock markets. When people who, quite frankly don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to investing and are in that sense "children", decide to trade in securities, we make companies fall over backwards to ensure that someone with a 2nd grade education has access to all sorts of information he will never understand.

On the other hand, we have children, who will have sex at some point, probably fairly early on in their lives, yet the government wants to shut down the streams of information that help make informed decisions. I understand that there are huge distinctions here, but I think it's still worth a reflection.

Liars believe everyone lies. Theives believe everyone steals. Adulterors believe everyome commits adultery.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Sydney Carton demonstrating some of that "snarkiness and vitriol" blogs are so famous for!

Seriously, though, it's not like Freder is always (frequently?) the politest fellow in the room, but way to (a) insult him while (b) at least partly missing his point.

"No one cares how many sex partners you've had... but that doesn't change the fact that as a group, we are better off if the national average remains as close to one per lifetime as possible. We're not talking about throwing you in jail if you reach a certain number, but we should definitely try to promote monogomy as the standard. No enforcement, just the general promotion of the idea that you're not "expected" to have sex. I think the STD epidemic outweighs your need to feel good about yourself."

Well said, though of course I think we could do a lot more to promote monogomy. We could end no-fault divorce, could get serious about private lawsuits against parties who interfere with a marriage, etc. And of course, it's not just some concern about STDs. Multiple sex partners and having multiple children through them all isn't exactly the greatest way to get oneself out of poverty. Adultery is a frivolty for the rich but a trap for the poor. There are many reasons other than STDs to encourage monogomy.

Implicit in this statement is the assumption that their parents are regularly engaging in adultery and sex outside of marriage. Somehow, in the vast swath of Red State America, I doubt that's the case.

Liars believe everyone lies. Theives believe everyone steals. Adulterors believe everyome commits adultery.

This has nothing to do with Freder thinking that other people have gotten divorced because he has. The statistics are well-known and quite clear. Red States have higher rates of just about every conceivable (no pun intended) social problem from divorce to teen pregnancy. And yes, Mass., that hotbed of immorality, does indeed have the lowest divorce rate in the country. Of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates, 9 were blue states in the last election. Of the 10 with the highest divorce rates, all ten were red. But I'm sure you find more security in the fantasy of your cute little saying, Sydney. Much more convenient than facts.

This proposed regulation promotes the outrageous proposition that any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

It also promotes the outrageous proposition that a marriage certificate is protective against an unintended pregnancy, or STIs.

Plunge:

Some whose sex is strictly monogomous are not prudes. They even understand how the mechanics work, and have a hell of a time.

Forgive me if I am redundant, my time is worth more than wading through all the posts.

Illicit sex is not fun if it is not illicit. I repeat, illicit sex is not fun if it is not illicit.

Swirl that around in your noggin, think of the implications. If we make all imaginable sex between "two concenting adults" legal, acceptable, even encouraged societally, where does that leave us? We have to turn to sex that is not between "two consenting adults" to find illicit sex.

Do you realize that by making gay sex, adulterous sex, and pre-marital sex societally acceptable, we force people to seek sex which is not between "two consenting adults". Do you think the group sex people arent going to try to get thier gig acceptable? How about the NAMBLA guys and thier need to be socially acceptable. Then we will have to deal with the people who want farm animals to be included into the acceptable realm. Before long , not only will cats and dogs be sleeping together, they will want civil unions.
A strict governmental definition of "proper sex" is desirable. A strict enforcement of thier definition is not. Face it, we are living in the silver age of sexuality (the golden age being the 60's free love movement).

If we keep liberalizing our sexual conduct, we are going to have to find some really freaky aliens to maintain any sense of illicit sex, and quite frankyly I dont think that is forthcoming.

18 U.S.C. 1030: Perhaps you could back up your implication that "morality" laws are uncontitutional? "Murder is wrong" is a law that codifies the moral belief of a majority... the majority happens to be VERY large, but that's irrelevant. There is definitely nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government can't regulate conduct based on the moral views of the majority, much less state governments.

"Murder, however, is not illegal because it is wrong based on a relgion or ethical view; but, because society has defined it as such in law."

Murder is illegal because there's a law against it? Fancy that. I wonder why they wrote the law about it, though? Gosh, do you think that maybe the legislatures thought it was BAD? Holy moly, BAD, as in, an ethical judgment against it?!!? Wow.

"A group, whether or not they are the majority dictating what other groups can do, in order to place their own moral views on them is not acting lawfully."

But we just established that the whole point in making murder illegal was because legislators thought it was wrong according to their ethical view. Now you say that they CANNOT do this?

"To say that the bible belt is the majority, therefore the law of the land is now the beliefs of those people is not acting according to our constitution."

Oh ye of little logic. If they are the majority and they pass these laws, they ARE the laws of the land. Heck, if you get enough of them to agree, you might find they could pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT against something like abortion!!!!! Oh NO! What sort of argument would you make against them if they did that!? Would THAT be illegal also?

You need to learn a lot about how democracies work, Mr. 18 USC 1030.

Democrocies can only go as far as the Constitution allows. Legislatures can only create laws for the purposes allowed by the Constitution. Perhaps I was a bit vague in my rant; but, if a moral objective is contrary to the Constitutional guidelines for creating law, it is Unconstitutional. Never did I question the ability to create such a statute via an amendment. However, as I recall that would require a bit more than a majority vote in the house and senate....

Our democracy was not set up for the majority to put down the minority. Our democracy was set up to value all peoples.

Fern, thanks for that clarification. I totally agree that the spiritual value of marriage "generally," may be diminished by ill-conceived (pardon the pun and the plagiarism) campaign by some one the right to reduce the institution to a "mere" piece of paper.

With that said, one must bear in mind that folks like yourself will find sanctity in your own marriage, presumably, regardless of what happens outside of it.

Murder is illegal because the continued health of the state requires the state to have a monopoly on violence. I imagine that back when humans were first figuring out their moral codes, there was a perfect correlation between what behavior was deemed immoral and what behavior, if permitted, would've destroyed the community. These many thousands of years later, there's a lot of overlap between commonly held morality and the category of "things that are illegal for the health of the state" but I'd imagine most people no longer think that the two categories are the same.

Personally, I don't think teaching kids the proper use of a condom is a threat to the continued existence of the United States.

I remember the old maxim that the government is the legitimate monopoly of coersive power. Issue is the government only mantains that monopoly if it is acting legitimately. I for one do not feel that preventing the discussion of condoms is all that legit.

No no... he's on to something. Disband the dept of education and get the federal government out of the business of educating kids. Problem solved!

Sydney, hate to bust your bubble but I am a right of center Christian who personally is against sex before marriage. However, that does not mean I have the right to put that view on anyone else. Call me a bad Christian if you wish, but my view on MY religion is that it is just that; MINE.

Well done. "Pwned," as the kids would say.

Speedwell
No, just that people have the right to be obsessed with dirty, nasty sex.

"However, that does not mean I have the right to put that view on anyone else."

If you get enough people who agree with you, it sure as hell does. You can write a law about it if the people agree. It's called majoritarian rules. And it's fundamental to democracy.

"Call me a bad Christian if you wish, but my view on MY religion is that it is just that; MINE. It is the morals I have decided to live by, not those I think I have the right or moral obligation to put on others; sorry."

Your treatment of social concerns involving ethical views as purely private matters is cute, if not ignorant. Would you make this argument regarding infanticide? Partial-birth abortion? Abortion in general? The fact is, since the invention of Democracy, law is an instrument of morality as reflected in the community.

You said: "if a moral objective is contrary to the Constitutional guidelines for creating law, it is Unconstitutional."

Thank God you're not on the Supreme Court.

Which moral objectives are contrary to "Constitutional guidelines" for creating law? Only those involving sex? Is the reason for a federal law against prostitution purely economic, or was it REALLY done because Congress wanted to stop prostitution?

Would it be illegal to tax unmarried couples living together at a rate higher than married couples?

Would it be illegal to not tax married couples at all, while taxing single couples and single people?

Would it be illegal to force unmarried fathers with children to pay child support?

Would it be illegal to restrict a child-tax credit to married couples?

Would it be illegal to restrict a child-tax credit, marriage credit, or any other credit, to opposite-sex couples?

Forget "couples." What about polygomous marriages?

Forget "marriages." What about people who live in the same household?

Forget living together. What about people who they both claim to raise children, but in fact, live apart?

Are there moral objectives behind these laws? Does it matter if there are also other reasons? Are moral objectives contrary to those other reasons?

I reiterate: Thank God you're not on the Supreme Court. My answer: Congress can do whatever it damn well wants regarding tax credits, etc, in the above examples. They can make it so that only gay people would have to pay federal income taxes, or they could swing the opposite way and say that only opposite-sex married couples have to pay taxes. And they can have whatever reason for those laws, or none at all. Congress could make it legal to engage in insider trading, but could make it illegal to commit adultery. The check on this activity is not a Supreme Court, but the people.

"However, that does not mean I have the right to put that view on anyone else."

If you get enough people who agree with you, it sure as hell does. You can write a law about it if the people agree. It's called majoritarian rules. And it's fundamental to democracy.

Sydney, his point is obviously that he doesn't think he should have the right to enforce his own moral views on what happens between two consenting adults. That means murder, child abuse, infanticide, and for many people, abortion are realms in which the gov't should interfere to protect the rights of one person. You know, the whole "my right to swing my fist stops at your face" thing. If, however, two consenting adults of whatever gender want to provide mutual oral, genital, etc. stimulation outside of the context of marriage but in the privacy of their own home, that's their business. In other words, he's putting forward a pretty straightforward libertarian notion of what laws should and should not do. I assume he feels this way because he understands that it is very important to protect the minority from having certain rights taken away by a majority because those rights are just that important. Any of this ringing a bell? So you can't tell two men they can't suck each other's penises (I'm doing my best not to force this comment to be deleted) in the privacy of their own home or hotel room and if, by some chance, snake worshippers become a majority, they can't force you to bow to their slithery master. If you think majority rules is the absolute answer, then I feel for you, because your general views on sexual morality on the way out.

"In other words, he's putting forward a pretty straightforward libertarian notion of what laws should and should not do."

If he was making merely a "should"-type argument, that'd be another discussion entirely. This thread originally started out that way. But then 10 USC 1030 said that "if a moral objective is contrary to the Constitutional guidelines for creating law, it is Unconstitutional." What he means is that certain moral objectives are unconstitutional. That has nothing to do with "should", and everything to do with fundamental powers. He's basically suggesting that it's unconstitutional for Congress to use morality in crafting law (which is why he diverted down the "federalism" argument for a brief moment). Now, last I checked, I missed the part of the Constitution where it said that use of morality is unconstitutional.

Can you explain to me if the entire federal tax structure, as currently written, is unconstitutional because it doesn't permit polygomous marriages, or gay marriages, to claim certain tax credits? Again, I have no problem with a "should"-type discussion, but it's clear that the tax code isn't unconstitutional, and that views of morality are inherent to crafting law.

And the reason that those laws passed? Because the majority agreed with the morality underlying them. The majority thought, for instance, it was a good thing to have a child-tax credit (as opposed to, to take a wild counter-example, a virutal reality porn tax credit).

"If you think majority rules is the absolute answer, then I feel for you, because your general views on sexual morality on the way out."

I'm not so sure about that. But we'll see.

Sydney

Which moral objectives are contrary to "Constitutional guidelines" for creating law?

All objectives for creating law not outlined in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution are contrary to Constitutional guidelines.

Would you make this argument regarding infanticide? Partial-birth abortion? Abortion in general? The fact is, since the invention of Democracy, law is an instrument of morality as reflected in the community.

Infanticide I think we can all agree goes to general wellfare-- its called murder and is illegal, based on Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1.

Abortion, though I am personally against it, both for myself, and if asked by a friend for advice; I think until it can be shown by science when "life" begins, it is up to one person to decide what they will or will not do with their body, based on their own morality. Murder is the killing of a living person. When science tells me for a fact what constitutes life, then I will be happy to enforce it. Until then a living person is just that; a living person, i.e. born.

As for prostitution, you still do not understand my concept. It is not that laws with moral asspects can't be codified, it's that such laws must be based on a legal right provided the congress. The federal statute prohibits the travel for purposes of prostitution, as that is all that it has the right to prohibit. I am not sure I agree that it should be illegal. But that is definitly for another day.

Your tax examples are all unconstitutional because they are arbitrary and would be viewed as a discriminatory use of the authority tax.

As to the issue over child support, the federal government requires the states to have child support laws. Yes, this is allowed. Why? Because it helps to ensure the general welfare. If parents did not support their children, we as a society would be forced to pay more to provide services to these children. In order that society is not forced to pay for children, parents are mandated to pay for their own. Now before you try to equate this to abstinance teaching, the difference here is that this is a child that exists that society is not forced to pay for, not a child that could, possibly be born.

The major issue here is the fact that in all your examples, you were speaking on actions on the part of the government to regulate certain behaviors. The abstinance training is a regulation of ideas and speech. There is an inherent difference between these.

If the purpose of this is to help society by reducing the number of cases of STDs and to reduce the number of unwanted pregnencies, then surely it is responsible to provide with the abstinance information, information about safe sex. Otherwise, those who don't follow the abstinance advice will face the only other option they are given: unprotected sex. This is seems runs contrary to the purposes of the policy; unless the only purpose was a moral one, which is then quite a weak argument.

As to the Supreme Court, I believe that the justices ought to have the view that if the Constitution doesn't allow for it, congress cannot do it. That doesn't mean the majority can't have their way; it means the majority must show it is their view by enacting a Constitutional amendment. I think you need to understand OUR democracy better. You may have a firm grasp of the perfect democracy; but this nation is not a democracy of men, it is one of law. I for one am glad that laws cannot be passed based on the whim of the government. If you want the purpose of our government, take a look at the Preamble of the Constitution, I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow for the prohibition of things we disagree with. It was meant to be all inclusive not all exclusive.

We know where life begins. Biologically, it begins at conception. You're talking about "personhood," which is a completely different story.

Daniel, Thanks for catching that. Yes, I meant person as is needed for murder. I know life begins at conception and made a typo.

SLS, I wasn't even going there as to income tax.

I know you were, but I wasn't going to make any jokes, wanted to (hopefully) keep the list of his disagreements short.

I agree with you on the orientation discrimination issue. Seems to me some people don't understand that the Constitution limits the power of the government and, for that matter, the power of the majority. If the government was supposed to be run by pure majority rule, there would be no need for the bill of rights, nor any of those pesky amendments affecting equal rights. Most notably the XIII XIV XIX XXIV XXVI, respectively.

"Your tax examples are all unconstitutional because they are arbitrary and would be viewed as a discriminatory use of the authority tax."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Is the graduated income tax arbitrary? How many brackets is constitutional? FLAT TAX, HERE I COME! Phew! Ah, me. This is where your argument becomes the absurdity that it clearly is. The Federal Income Tax is perfectly constitutional. The Code has always assumed traditional norms of concepts like marriage. It has never allowed pologymous couples to engage in multi-joint filings. (Note, SLS 1L: my lists were broader than mere sexual orientation, as they dealt with pologomy, single parents, etc. as well. Unless everything under the sun is a suspect class, you're always going to have someone on the outside.)

Did you file your taxes this year? Claim any credits or exemptions based on marital status? Were you penalized in some way because of your marital status? Did you claim anyone as a dependent? I'll bet dollars to donughts that you're not suing the IRS right now, or that you failed to pay your taxes because you reject the IRS Code.

I've gotta say, between declaraing that morality is commonly used as a basis for morality and thus ok, or claiming that morality cannot be used as a basis for morality EXCEPT for those laws that I agree with which OBVIOUSLY promote the general welfare, you go with the WEAKEST of the two, and as a result, are forced to declare that the IRS Code is Unconstitutional. I'll wager that your argument will find little supporters in the Federal Judiciary, or probably even on this website (which hopefully would recognize that an argument that so casually dismisses something obviously constitutionally sound as the Tax Code is clearly wrong).

"The major issue here is the fact that in all your examples, you were speaking on actions on the part of the government to regulate certain behaviors. The abstinance training is a regulation of ideas and speech. There is an inherent difference between these."

The training at issue is GOVERNMENT SPEECH, and hence, the government can say whatever it wants to say. Something tells me you'd have more of a problem with a law that regulated private behavior than one regulating government speech. This law has nothing to do with private speech, and don't insult me by pretending otherwise.

You back all of your hyperbole up by pretending that laws which impact morality that you find acceptable fit into the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, and hence are ok. I could try playing your game and suggesting that laws that I like fit into the "general welfare" clause, and that laws I don't like do not, but I have too much respect to accept such a weak argument. It is such a cowardly move. How convenient for you that all the laws you like fit into the general welfare clause, while all the laws you despise do not! I wish I had that kind of magic formula.

18 USC, give it up. I'm betting that even SLS 1L, probably a liberal who never met a sex law he wouldn't strike down, thinks that you're on rocky shores here. But nevertheless, it's been fun tearing you a new one. If you persist in your absurdity, it won't be a surprise to me, nor to this weblog. But I promise to have lots of fun with your arguments in the future. Until then!

darn. The third paragraph's 1st sentence of my last post should read:

"I've gotta say, between declaraing that morality is commonly used as a basis for LAW and thus ok...."

When it comes to sex how do you tell a novice from a professional?

The same way you do in law. Look for the license.

The longer marriage is delayed the more sex partners a man is likely to have.

I read a study once that Jewish men had on the average 12 sex partners before marriage. Reason: marriage age averaged 28.

BTW Jewish men in general are considered good husbands. I wonder if there is some causation here. Or just correlation.

In any case: Nature will not be twarted.

Daniel - for better or worse, Lawrence v. Texas is the law of the land today, and a tax on gay sex would probably be unconstitutional under Lawrence.

Roughly half the states in the country have fornication laws, and some are still enforcing them. Why shouldn't education programs be consistent with the law? After all, a quarter had sodomy laws as of Lawrence, perhaps an eighth to a quarter more were struck down by courts against the will of legislatures and their constituents, and several states had voted down repeal laws within the few years before.

Surely a subsidy, at any rate, is an easier sell than a direct prohibition. Whether the law is good policy or not is another question, but shock? If a dry county had a school program about not drinking alcohol, one could debate the merits of alcohol prohibition, but shock? Surely it's reasonable for the law and education policy to be consistent. Surely the existence of dry counties, or fornication laws, shouldn't surprise anyone.

Even still, I think that the following tax credit would be ruled unconstitutional.


Any, and all heterosexual persons that are the natural parent or legal guardian of a child under 18 years of age are entitled to a credit of $150 dollars; this credit is not to extend to any homosexual person claiming guardian ship of any child (natural or adopted), whether, single, in a relationship, or, if allowed by state law, married/Civil Union.

I'm not seeing a rational relation between the tax and the condition, so yeah... it probably is.

Also, I would argue that "homosexual person" is an ambiguous term. Are we talking self-identification? Someone who's engaged in one sex act with a person of the same sex in the past year? "Ever seen a grown man naked?" What about someone who's happily married, but was always... curious?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a state that would allow gay marriage but refuse to allow a tax credit. Sorry... but I really don't want to play the hypothetical game all night on this.

I think government licenses are a 19th century invention, although the legal effects that flow from marriage are not.

You misunderstand me. People with clean, decent minds don't spend their time desperately worried sick that other people are having sex of which they personally disapprove.

I only desperately worry that other people are having sex of which I disapprove when I visit the homepage of Babbette the Inflatable Love Ewe.

I think taxation is a very smart, free market way of dealing with all of this. Why not have a tax policy that promotes abstinence? Promiscuity costs the government money -- out-of-wedlock births and STDs are expensive -- why shouldn't the government tax it?

There's already been a move to regulate it, from the left. I'm serious -- in my files I've got a proposed rulemaking, from the very end of the Carter Administration, proposing consumer safety rules for dildos. It makes for hilarious reading as the authors try to describe, in stilted bureaucratese suitable for the Federal Register, just what they are used for and how the standards would be laid out (pardon the phrase).

Great, we have a choice between a government that wants to regulate that sort of thing and a government that wants to flat out prohibit it.

I think taxation is a very smart, free market way of dealing with all of this. Why not have a tax policy that promotes abstinence?

Do you really not see the the contradiction in saying "taxation is a...free market way..."? Really???

Libertarians and hippies think casual sex outside of marriage is fine. No one else does. And 75% of this country wants abstinence education. More than 60% do NOT want comprehensive sex ed. You may still oppose it, but be clear: you are opposing the will of the majority of parents.

Well, given that 70-80% of American men (and a slightly lower percentage of women) report actually having had sex before getting married (and this does NOT include sex while married, but outside of that marriage), apparently Libertarians and hippies are among the few who aren't hypocrites. As a side note, are there still hippies around? Haven't seen many since Jerry Garcia died and the Dead broke up.

sex leads to children; therefore, sex outside of marriage is harmful.

I've been having heterosexual sex for the last 20 years on a regular basis and, thanks to what I learned in sex ed and from my parents (republican Catholics with open minds), it has not lead to children. You do realize that modern science has pretty much de-coupled the two, if one uses sufficient care, right? You may bemoan this, but it's a fact.

Having children outside of a stable heterosexual relationship (marriage) is harmful; sex leads to children; therefore, sex outside of marriage is harmful.


This proposal requires educators to advocate against even post-menopausal women having sex unless married.

jvarisco - care to provide the link to the actual polls, rather than the versions spun by the Christian Broadcasting Network and the Heritage Foundation?

Even if the poll really does show that most Americans want abstinence-only sex education, I'd be shocked if the poll made it clear that "abstinence-only" means:

1) No below-the-neck sexual contact of any kind until marriage;
2) If you're divorced/widow(er)ed, still unmarried at 40, etc., then no sexual contact of any kind unless you marry;
3) No sex of any kind for gays, even in states where gay marriage is legal.

Do Americans really want their kids taught that breast-touching, handjobs, etc. are OK only if you are married?

Perseus on hippies, libertarians:

It's very easy not to be a hypocrite if you lower your standards enough, so that's not a very impressive virtue.

Perseus, the beauty of the country we live in is that you are free to hold and espouse that (unabashedly self-righteous) opinion. And you may petition your government to teach that view in schools, and indeed, the government sees it your way. I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm saying that as an original matter, your view is wrong.

All endeavors which cut strongly enough against the grain of human nature are destined for failure. If you assume the position that people want to do more for others than for themselves, you will fail. (See: Communism). If you assume the position that people eschew strength in numbers in favor of uncontrolled individualism, you will fail. (See: Anarchism). If you assume the position that teenagers, for some reason, after thousands upon thousands of evolution saying the opposite, are not going to fuck, you will fail. (See: Abstinence Education).

In fact, to fully inform yourself of the utter inefficacy of abstinence education, consult its history in the Soviet Union. (HINT: It didn't work so well.)

Here is a link to a study that may or may not say whether parents want to teach safe sex. But, it does say that 98% of the population uses some method of safe sex...

Lee:

[I]t's been my experiance, as someone that's had more sex partners than the norm, that sex in a long term relationship with someone you really cherish makes everything else no better than masturbation

Don't knock masturbation. Like Woody said - it's sex with someone you love.

RBG, that's true. Yet perhaps even more ironically, smart heterosexuals are the beneficiaries of this trend, because presuming a steady pro rata demand for intellect, intellect as a resource will prove more valuable in a world where there is less of it, again - ratably.

Sexual morality has more to do with male to female ratios than any rules in a book.

Whant to improve females attitude towards promiscious sex? Make sure there are enough quality men to meet their marriage needs. In aproximatelt 50/50 malew/female ratio.

Now just what government progran can do that?

Government program to reduce number of marriage age men and other interesting demographic stuff.

Let me try again without typos. PIMF:

Sexual morality has more to do with male to female ratios than any rules in a book.

Want to improve females attitude towards promiscious sex? Make sure there are enough quality men to meet their marriage needs. In aproximately 50/50 male/female ratio.

Now just what government progran can do that?

Government program to reduce number of marriage age men and other interesting demographic stuff.

All endeavors which cut strongly enough against the grain of human nature are destined for failure.

That's the gist of the argument made long ago by Machiavelli, Mandeville, Montesquieu, Hume, et al. in their attack on traditional moralists, but being more knowledgeable than you, they never made such a sweeping claim because they were aware that several republics of antiquity constituted notable exceptions to that general rule.

In any case, I was not making any implicit claims about the efficacy of contemporary abstinence education. Rather, I was expressing my preference for hypocrisy over authenticity because the former at least pays homage to virtue.

Lee wrote:

For you folks that feel having as many sexual partners as possible is the way to nirvana, it's been my experiance, as someone that's had more sex partners than the norm, that sex in a long term relationship with someone you really cherish makes everything else no better than masturbation. Not knowing that Freder is your loss.

First of all, neither Freder, nor I, nor anyone else said that life was, or should be, an exercise in indiscriminate, promiscuous, sex for the sake of chalking points on the wall. Nor has any one said that there was something wrong with long-term relationships. Sometimes the journey to the "right one" has a lot of detours, potholes, and wrong turns. This is not a discussion about adultery -- it is a discussion about PRE-marital sex. There's a difference.

Going back to the origin of this thread, the points that those of us who think abstinence-only is a bad policy have made boil down to: It is unrealistic, counterproductive, and ineffective to achieve the stated goals; further, it is a thinly-disguised attempt to limit the information received based upon a particular religious viewpoint.

Those who are concerned about their own children learning "too much" can, at least in my state, Virginia, opt out of the classes that discuss the issues of premarital sex, contraception, etc. The school sends a form home at the beginning of the school year and again before the particular classes are given. Given that parents already control the information conveyed to their own children, the abstinence-only approach is clearly intended to limit the information given to other people's children.

I have three daughters, two of whom are teenagers. One is a junior in college. I don't want them having sex, but short of requiring chastity belts and/or chaperoning every date they go on, I do not have absolute control over that. Programs that discourage teenage sex are good; programs that point out that if you are going to have sex you should have safe sex are also good. Having most or all teenagers understand the foregoing is also good.

As a separate issue, predicating abstinence-only programs on bases that may place the children in direct conflict with their parents behavior (e.g., divorced adults having sex -- which by the way, is not adultery, since their is no cuckolded spouse) is a bad idea, although the reaction is less likely to be "Mom, you're a whore!" than "Mrs. Grundy, that's just stupid. My divorced parents have sex with people they date, and everything's just fine. Why should I believe this only-in-marriage stuff?"

Boy, 209 comments.

I guess SIECUS and the various promoters of Slave Schools and the promotion of Sex therein didn't count on elections. Sauce for Goose Sauce for Gander. I think it's pretty well established that the Feds can do anything they want with your local Slave Schools. Maybe state monopoly education wasn't such a good idea in the first place.

We did warn you about Federal Aid to Education at the time but you chose to ignore us.

Since it's fairly well established that faithful, married, heterosexuals are happier, wealthier, and longer-lived than promiscuous singles (of any orientation) if you think your schools can teach their charges not to smoke, vote Republican, tell ethnic jokes, etc. then you can hardly argue that your schools can't teach their charges not to screw.

Did anyone else notice that "(Consistent with Federal law)" is eerily similar to "In accordance with Islam" that we see in other contexts?

I was going to write something about the intense polarization in the political/philosophical areana of this country...
...why bother.

Sorry, nrein, but you're trying to waffle this. You can't teach kids about condoms and then say "by the way, don't use these, stay abstinent." It's like giving your kid the keys to the car and then telling him not to drive.

I see your point Quaterican, but I disagree. If a kid wants to sneak into the car to drive, he can reach into the glove compartment and read up on the braking system and the use of turn signals. Similarly, those kids who are determined to have sex know damn well that people get pregnant from sex, and they can to read up (on the internet or in a public library) about birth control. But to tell them about birth control and then say "don't use it, you should be abstinent" just doesn't work.

Yes, kids will break the rules. But let's not give them advice on how to do it.

I still don't see how anyone can justify keeping children misinformed and underinformed.

As Seanbaby said in his great article on the ban on teaching kids about the existence of homosexuality:
http://www.seanbaby.com/news/measure9.htm
"So it may not be a beautiful thing, but it is at least a thing. Not teaching kids about it isn't going to help anyone. In fact, if you don't ever tell them what it is, you're going to find two little boys having sex, and they won't be embarrassed. They'll call you over, "We invented a new game! It's called Buttball!"

In a worst-case scenario you might come across an entire team of Buttball players with homemade jerseys and helmets playing for the Buttball state championships against another school. And someone had better tell these kids that what they're doing is sex before they start letting their teams' animal mascots get in the game."

"Jim Rhoads (mail): Plunge: Some whose sex is strictly monogomous are not prudes. They even understand how the mechanics work, and have a hell of a time."

Lol: but how would they KNOW it was a hell of a time? Compared to what? :)

nrein) Do you think a majority of this country does not believe sex outside of marriage, or at least a stable heterosexual relationship, is a bad thing? Perhaps not 91%, but I would be surprised if you could find anything showing a majority for the other side.

Personally, I think teaching kids safe sex (without condoning or promoting it) is a good idea. However, pretending that Bush is somehow subverting the will of the majority is disingenuous; he is actually siding with them here. He is trying to reverse the sexual revolution, but that's one of the main reasons he was elected in the first place.

Smithy writes:

This was meant to be a Christian nation. And most Americans want it be a Christian nation. And eventually, we'll get enough judges on the courts who agree so that we can be a Christian nation again.

Where in the text of the Constitution would a strict constructionist judge find support for this? Your quote is almost a parody of itself.


He also writes:

Sorry, nrein, but you're trying to waffle this. You can't teach kids about condoms and then say "by the way, don't use these, stay abstinent." It's like giving your kid the keys to the car and then telling him not to drive.

No, it's like telling them not to get into accidents, but to wear a seat belt just in case.

Most Americans believe that God should have more of a place in the schools -- that means abstinence training, giving creation science and ID equal weight as the theory of evolution, it means prayer, and it means respecting the president at a time of war, no matter how the teachers feel about it themselves.

If your purpose is to utterly destroy American education, this would be the right way to do it.

This was meant to be a Christian nation. And most Americans want it be a Christian nation. And eventually, we'll get enough judges on the courts who agree so that we can be a Christian nation again.

So, everyone else out? Are you in favor of loading Jews get on a boat for Madagascar?

Why are "judges" even necessary to complete this process, when those unelected, elitist judges are supposed to simply interpret law, not force their morality upon others? Or is this something that you only criticize the left for doing?

Personally, I think teaching kids safe sex (without condoning or promoting it) is a good idea. However, pretending that Bush is somehow subverting the will of the majority is disingenuous; he is actually siding with them here. He is trying to reverse the sexual revolution, but that's one of the main reasons he was elected in the first place.

Well, your second paragraph contradicts your first one. In your first you are not willing to go as far as the Bush administration goes (that all sex outside of marriage is wrong). I doubt you would find a majority in this country who would honestly answer that all sex outside of marriage is wrong (or even a large minority).

I didn't mean to make it sound like a dichotomy. I agree that there are some people in the middle. But most lean one way or the other. And there are certainly some faith-based people on the left who seek to reconcile knowledge with faith. But I think most fall into one camp or the other. Essentially, we have two parties politically: the Democrats, who are knowledge-based, and the Republicans, who are faith-based. It's not either/or on a person-by-person basis, but culturally it is.

I realize, BTW, that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. But most of the framers had degrees from religious institutions and almost all were Christians. The notion that they were deists (other than Ben Franklin, who may have been) has been thoroughly debunked.

But most Americans will choose faith over knowledge. America has always been and will continue to be a faith-based society.

Easily explaining the popularity of get-rich-quick spam and fad diets, not to mention American Idol.

That's why I don't care -- and most American don't care -- when they find some new fossil that fills in some gap in the theory of evolution. I follow Christ and no number of fossils is going to change that.

I'll call the ACLU and tell them to get those commie scientists to work harder on their forgeries next time.

Those of us on the right believe the opposite -- that faith is more important than knowledge and that we must keep things from our children that might interfere with the development of their faith.

Everytime I start to think that, as a libertarian, perhaps the Republicans are ultimately the lesser of two evils, I run into things like this (and Bush being the biggest gov't spender in recent memory). Smithy basically thinks we should lie to our children, or at least keep them ignorant of what his statement of the issue implies are true facts (i.e. "knowledge") so that they will then believe something that isn't necessarily true but parents (or other people in power) think is more important. Needless to say, leaders in the USSR, the PRC, Cuba, and many others have believed similar things, this doesn't make it a good way to run a country, a society or even a family. Smithy alone is obviously not enough proof that this is what the American Right stands for, but everything these days just seems to point to the GOP becoming the other party of big government, but this time with repressive social ideals that they are determined to force on the public.

This doesn't mean I'm going to start voting for the Dems, but it certainly doesn't convince me to vote GOP either.

I think of myself as libertarian/conservative, and Christian, and sometimes I just can't believe that I share the same politics with Smithy.

e.g. Knowledge. Does anybody here remember the Republican Revolution? Newt Gingrich? What conservatives promised (and sometimes delivered) was the use of new knowledge to create new solutions to our problems. They ridiculed simply faith in the old - i.e. turning to the power of the state (whether the federal dept. of education or otherwise) as a one-size-fits-all solution. How far we have come.

Honestly, these last 8 years have corrupted not only the Republican party, but any last remaining traces of good ideas. Now every solution is just to use the power of the federal government.

I become more disgusted, daily.

When I vote, I go on what I know about individuals, and then for the rest I vote Republican. This year, I'm considering voting for the people I like, and then abstaining from people that I don't know about.

If the Republican party wants me, they better remember why I voted for them in the first place. If not, screw 'em. Keeping them in office doesn't do any good.

Medis, I haven't explained my point very well at all. Yes, we all go to mechanics and want engineers to build our bridges and so on. Those are all arenas where faith and knowledge do not conflict with each other. I say we're faith-based and the left is knowledge-based, but I mean that only in terms of choosing sides when the two come into conflict. Most conservatives obviously seek knowldege in most things, and some liberals are certainly church-goers.

I stand firmly behind the position that teenagers should not be taught to drive in heavy traffic, at night, or in snow, sleet, rain, or other inclement conditions. Every rational person knows that it is optimal for teenagers to drive on dry roads during daylight hours when the roads are free of traffic, and if they are taught to drive in less than optimal conditions, the chances of their doing so and being injured or killed rise dramatically.

Franklin was the only deist? Have you ever seen the Jefferson bible? Take a look sometime. He believed in Christ only to the degree that the teachings were the purest rules of morality put forth by man. Yes, that's right, by man. He cut out of the bible every mention of immaculate conception, miracles, and resurection.

I still, for the life of me do not understand why people believe their views on morality ought to be the law of the land for everyone. This nation was founded so laws WOULDN'T be based on religious views; not that they would. No one is preventing us Christians from keeping our faith. No one is suggesting we not grow in faith. What they, and I, are suggesting is that our religious or moral views do not translate to law. Sure, there are many laws that are based on some sense of morality; but morality is not justification for laws. Morality can be the purpose of law, but the Constitution is the only justification.

Depriving information is absurd. I have no problem allowing opt outs. But to think that kids, if not taught about contraceptives in school will run to the library to study is absurd. The government isn't, or shouldn't be in the business of regulating morality. The sex-ed programs ought to serve the purpose of preventing unwanted pregnancy and transmitting STD's. If a person, based on moral teachings of parents and religious leaders would follow abstinance, the mentioning of condoms will not change that.

However, if students do not have that moral guide, then the government has a compelling interest in preventing the spread of disease. In order to do this, condom usage ought to be taught. Those believing in the religious traditions will not immediately give up their religious beliefs because they hear the word condom. If faith is so weak that the mere mention of information destroys the moral views of people then I suggest you find a new religion. Religious views should be strong enough to withstand the teaching of a sex-ed class. My Christian beliefs have not been tarnished by hearing information. I do think that the religious need to determine why morality dictates ought to be law. What if the liberal agnostics gained power and eliminated the free practice of religion? Would that be ok because it is the majority view?

He cut out of the bible every mention of immaculate conception, miracles, and resurection.

Immaculate conception is a peculiarly Roman Catholic concept that has no basis anwhere in the bible. It refers not to Jesus being born of a virgin, but of Mary also being a virgin birth and didn't become the official doctrine of the Catholic church until the mid-nineteenth century. The Catholics consider sex so sinful that even Jesus' Grandmother had to be a virgin. And of course Mary remained a virgin her entire life even though the bible states clearly that she was married and Jesus had brothers.

jvarisco

Do you think a majority of this country does not believe sex outside of marriage, or at least a stable heterosexual relationship, is a bad thing? Perhaps not 91%, but I would be surprised if you could find anything showing a majority for the other side.

It really doesn't matter what the majority of people think, what seems to me to be more important is the way a majority of the people act. I don't know what the percentage of people that did not have sex until they were married, but I would bet it is much less then 50%. Even in a stable heterosexual relationship there is still the chance for pregnancy and trasmittal of STDs, it seems to me we should be teaching our children how to minimze these risks.

One thing that seems to be that has gotten left out of this debate is pregnancy. So let's say I am married and I have never had sex with anyone before and I also know nothing about birth control. I like sex, I enjoy it with my wife, but she keeps getting pregnant. What am I to do? Obviously this is a bit of an extreme and most people would have some idea of what their choices were, but their knowledge might not be accurate. I would much rather have them taught facts that are correct then have to rely on bits and pieces of information they picked up during their life.

Immaculate conception is a peculiarly Roman Catholic concept that has no basis anwhere in the bible. It refers not to Jesus being born of a virgin, but of Mary also being a virgin birth and didn't become the official doctrine of the Catholic church until the mid-nineteenth century. The Catholics consider sex so sinful that even Jesus' Grandmother had to be a virgin. And of course Mary remained a virgin her entire life even though the bible states clearly that she was married and Jesus had brothers.

Immaculate conception means nothing of the sort. What it means is that Mary was exempted from all stain of original sin; it has nothing to do with the manner of her generative conception. In fact, the Catholic Church accepts that Mary was conceived naturally. See here.

"I realize, BTW, that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. But most of the framers had degrees from religious institutions and almost all were Christians. The notion that they were deists (other than Ben Franklin, who may have been) has been thoroughly debunked."

I see, so these framers, who were undoubtedly familiar with Christianity, sat down to write the Constitution and came up with this preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Wow, not a single mention of God or Jesus or Christianity, what in the world were they thinking? You'd think they could at least slip in a "blessings of God" instead of a "blessings of Liberty." Well if you're going to insist that somehow the Founders intended to create a Christian state, perhaps you'll have a take a page from the Earl Warren playbook and claim that "we want to create a Christian state" is lurking in a penumbra of the Constitution somewhere.

<i>Immaculate conception is a peculiarly Roman Catholic concept that has no basis anwhere in the bible. It refers not to Jesus being born of a virgin, but of Mary also being a virgin birth and didn't become the official doctrine of the Catholic church until the mid-nineteenth century. The Catholics consider sex so sinful that even Jesus' Grandmother had to be a virgin. And of course Mary remained a virgin her entire life even though the bible states clearly that she was married and Jesus had brothers.</i>

Um. No. Immaculate conception means that Mary was free of original sin. Next time, before you profess on matters religious in which you clearly have ZERO knowledge, please check to see if you're not spewing pure bunk. Who knows? You might learn something. Google "Catholic Encyclopedia" and you'll find a ton of KNOWLEDGE there.

And that leads me to my 2nd point. Smithy, I have to assume your distinction/description of faith-based and knowledge-based camps is really simplistic, to put it mildly. I think it's a terrible description, and I have to suggest that you're probably viewing the camps from an Evangelical perspective. As a Catholic, for me there is little difference between faith or knowledge. Since the early Church, it has been a longstanding doctrine that reason informs our faith, and provides a pathway to faith. Heck, in one of the Letters of the New Testament (I think one written by Paul) it's basically said that the complexity and glory of the natural world is evidence of the nature of God. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Hence, it's also why the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution as a TOOL of God (however, the Church doesn't believe in wholescale, absolute, 100% randomness which would imply that Mankind is a mere fluke). In fact, despite public confusion over the Gallielo episode (which was really a political dispute the Church got sucked into), the Church for the most part has embraced science. The conflicts that arise today between scientists and the Church are not based on some knowledge/faith distinction, but rather over the proper way to proceed so that science doesn't eventually become a series of Nazi experiments (which, basically, is the view of the Church regarding embryo experimentation).

First, do we even know if this is true? The "according to online reports" phrase makes me wonder.

While I disagree with the policy, I am having trouble understanding the absolute *outrage* over this. I can understand that people are upset that their view isn't being taught (have sex but be safe), but why this notion of illegitimacy? Moreover, parents are still free to teach their kids what they want. If you think abstinence education is stupid, then tell your kids that. That anger so many here feel is probably pretty similar to what fundamentalist Christians feel when they read about some scandalous sex education program or schools handing out condoms.

The irony of it. Each side pointing fingers and feigning outrage that somebody would dare to impose their view of morality on others! What a joke.

While it's true this view doesn't command majority favor, neither has the other end of the spectrum (Joecyln Elders wanting to teach masterbation to young children, to take one outrageous example).

My advice to both sides of this debate: Get a grip.

It's worth reminding everyone that not only are anti-disceimination laws implementations of morality, but at one time principled libertariarians argued against them for that reason, claiming, as a matter of consistent principle, that consenting adults should be allowed to associate with whomever they pleased and to choose for themselves which aspects of their lives and which kinds of associations — work, domestic, or other — they personally regarded as important to them.

There may be policy reasons to favor restraints on occupational associations and disfavor restraints on domestic ones. But we ought to admit that such questions involve the practicalities of policy, not matters of principle. The libertarian principle of universal free association either applies everywhere or nowhere.

Abstinence until heterosexual marriage prevents, for example, venereal disease, as well as increasing the likelihood that children will have two parents biologically related to them and able and willing to care for them. This is all the rational basis needed. Whether these and various other arguments that can be made for it outweigh those against is another matter.

I don't see any difference between calling fornication laws "fundamentalist christian" and calling minimum-wage laws "Negro". Association with a disfavored group, even one which one believes to be habitually wrong as well as repugnant, is not a reasoned argument against a proposition.

The fact that people "know" a proposition to be true and regard its truth as obvious does not excuse them from following rules of reasoned argument. Much of the argument given here so far, strikes me, quite frankly, as falling into one of three classic categories of bad argument: repitition (simply repeating assertions until the other person agrees); ad-hominen(associating the proposition with a person or group and then attacking the group); or inappropriately generalization (asserting as always and universally true propositions that one actually believes in only partially, simply ignoring that they actually have a variety of exceptions in a variety of contexts).

Fornication laws and/or abstinence education may be bad ideas, but I frankly wouldn't have any way of concluding that from much of the argument given on this site. Do lawyers only use good or careful arguments for propositions that they think need it? Is there an inverse relationship between the quality of lawyers' arguments and their actual degree of belief?

Sydney,

Nominally related but pertinent:

Brian St. Paul writes about the AIDS crisis in Crisis, and says the following:

But while condoms clearly won't solve the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa (or anywhere else), there is an approach that will: abstinence. Indeed, in African nations — where HIV/AIDS is transmitted almost exclusively through sexual contact — abstinence is the obvious solution.

And better yet, it [abstinence] has been proven effective.

St. Paul goes on to bolster his point. As they say in the blogosphere, Read the whole thing.

I am not sure I accept St. Paul’s entire argument but it’s a rational response to the meme that “condoms work and abstinence doesn’t”, particularly when such a view may have had (and has had, in St. Paul’s opinion) devastating consequences for Africans.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0045.html

Note: I meant to lead my comment with "Brian St. Paul writes about the African AIDS crisis in Crisis . . ."

It goes without saying that St. Paul's comments may be limited to the situation in Africa and may not generalize elsewhere. But the drumbeat of "use condoms if you're going to have sex" could increase rates of sexual intercourse among youth and the attendant problems related thereto.

SLS 1L:

Is there any good peer-reviewed research (with random assignment and proper controls) that shows that abstinence plus programs (or comparable programs) actually lower rates of STDs or pregnancy among youth, relative to abstinence only programs?

If so, I would appreciate the reference(s).

Thanks

Much of the argument given here so far, strikes me, quite frankly, as falling into one of three classic categories of bad argument: repitition (simply repeating assertions until the other person agrees); ad-hominen(associating the proposition with a person or group and then attacking the group); or inappropriately generalization (asserting as always and universally true propositions that one actually believes in only partially, simply ignoring that they actually have a variety of exceptions in a variety of contexts).

You are apparently ignoring the arguments made by the people who think this policy is ridiculous. We have supplied plenty of rational reasons backed up by rational arguments (mainly that it has been shown over and over that abstinence only education simply doesn't achieve its stated goals and that this society accepts sex between unmarried adults as normal and healthy) of why this is a completely ludicrous policy. The people defending the administration's policy (and it is a policy and regulation, not a law, apparently slipped into the CFR--and I wouldn't be surprised if they somehow managed to circumvent the normal rulemaking process since this administration seems to think the normal rules don't apply to them) are the ones who defend this policy on the basis of "this is what people in this country want" without a shred of evidence that this is true.

Mike,

Of course not every commenter is pulling the "don't legislate morality" fallacy, but a suprising number of them have.

Hans - very true. I think the development of this fallacy is a side effect of the way "morality" has become a euphamism for "sex."

One could argue, indeed, that virtually all of the Founders were "Christians" only if we read the word "Christian" very broadly to include theological Unitarians who rejected other key tenets of orthodox Christianity.

And whose theology bears little, if any, resemblance to that of the sorts of people who tend to argue that the United States is a "Christian nation" and should be governed as such.

Also - can anyone explain why this thing is telling me that the blockquote tag is disallowed if I type it in myself, but thinks it's OK if I enter it by hitting the "Block Quote" button?

Hans, there we agree. I took issue only with what I took to be an overly general statement, but yeah, some folks definitely conflated the question of the government's power with the issues surrounding the underlying policy.

ReaderY: Leaving aside the fact that this is a regulation, not a statute, legislatures are only sort of "democratic," and legislative action is a very poor proxy for the will of the people. Some classes of people - big campaign contributors and fundraisers, moneyed special interest groups, etc. - have a disproportionate amount of influence over the process relative to your average voter. A small but powerful group of people who care a lot about policy X may be able to force X through even if X is widely opposed, provided that the people who oppose X (or would oppose it if they knew about it) don't care enough about it to let it change their votes.

For example, voters don't want scads and scads and scads of pork-barrel spending, but it happens anyway. The problem is that each individual pork-barrel project means a lot to someone, and voters don't feel strongly enough about it to let it be the determining influence on their vote.

Smithy,

You write: "Medis, I haven't explained my point very well at all. Yes, we all go to mechanics and want engineers to build our bridges and so on. Those are all arenas where faith and knowledge do not conflict with each other. I say we're faith-based and the left is knowledge-based, but I mean that only in terms of choosing sides when the two come into conflict. Most conservatives obviously seek knowldege in most things, and some liberals are certainly church-goers."

Once again, you are assuming that there is some unavoidable area of conflict between empirical knowledge and faith. And once again, I would note that I do not think that most Americans believe that. Indeed, I think many would agree that faith is about precisely those matters which empiricism cannot address.

In fact, I think it is clear at this point that you are not talking about "faith" in general. Rather, you are talking about something like Biblical literalism, and I think it is clear that many Americans who are devout Christians are not Biblical literalists.

In fact, I suspect that not even a majority of Republicans are Biblical literalists. But because of the importance of Biblical literalists to the Republican coalition, they do seem to have a disproportionate influence on internal Republican politics. But you might want to ask the ex-members of the Dover, PA, school board about how Americans in general feel about these matters.

By the way, for those non-theocratic Republicans who do not see becoming a Democrat as a viable option, here is one suggestion: become an independent. Additionally, you might consider my simple political strategy, designed to encourage smaller government and discourage corruption and abuses of power: at any given time, always support whichever of the two major political parties has the least amount of power. Right now that happens to be the Democrats, but with the way things are going in the polls, you might not have to support them for long before switching back again.

Of course, the one notable downside to this strategy is that you are never playing on a winning team. But unless you want to be a professional politico yourself, I don't see that as more than an issue of ego.

ReaderY - no, it had a clear meaning for the people who actively advocated it. Many ordinary people who said they supported it when polled or nodded when some politician spoke up in support of it probably had something very different from this regulation in mind

"Kids should be taught not to have sexual intercourse before they are married" is not at all the same as "kids should be taught that any kind of below-the-neck sexual activity is wrong unless they are in a heterosexual marriage, even if they are divorced, widow(er)ed, or gay."

Freder - this regulation definitely had "key supporters." Did nobody consider the opinion of James Dobson et al? I doubt it.

We conclude that activities such as the regular commission of sexual acts in the home by unmarried people, failing and refusing to counsel the children against such conduct while acknowledging this conduct to them, allowing the children to see unmarried persons known by the children to be sexual partners in bed together, keeping admittedly improper sexual material in the home, and Mr. Tipton's taking the children out of the home without their father's knowledge of their whereabouts support the trial court's findings of "improper influences" which are "detrimental to the best interest and welfare of the two minor children."

Pulliam v. Smith, N.C. 1998, http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/ opinions/1998/499-96-1.htm

There are zillions of cases like this throughout the courts of conservative states. Is there any serious doubt that there is currently a dispute in society?

Cute, slipping "casual" in there, but the proposal from Big Brother in Washington is to preach against ALL sexual activity outside of marriage, whether "casual" or not and regardless of the age of the people involved. Yes, even 45 year old divorced people need to be "educated" that they have to stop having sex now that they're divorced, even if they're in a long term, monogamous relationship. Do you seriously expect us to believe that 75% of the country thinks the government should be telling them not to have sex? I'm not even sure you could come up with 17%, let alone 75%.

Uh, you realize that we're talking about schools, right? How many 45 year olds, divorced or otherwise, are still in high school?

What is the definition of casual sex? It is sex outside of a committed monogamous relationship. There is no reason not to get married in such a relationship, so then by definition extra-marital sex is casual sex.

Freder) Schools can and should teach that all excess consumption of alcohol, and consumption of hard liquor, is bad. Getting drunk is the problem, not having a glass of wine. There are people who drink alcohol yet never to excess, and there is no problem there.

40% of the votes for Bush were from evangelical Christians. Any way you look at it, the majority of the people who voted for Bush prefer abstinence. As the policy is up to him, it seems to make perfect sense that he would do what his voters want. If you don't like the policy, vote for Kerry. Maybe we can start handing out condoms in kindergarten.

Hans) How could abstinence fail to reduce pregnancy, STDs, etc.? They are spread by sex, without sex they won't get spread.

Hi, I realize that this thread is rather old, and that this response isn't directly relevant to sex ed classes, but I must say I'm surprised that no one corrected Mr. Sydney Carton's misleading comment about Christianity.

"I thought the main tenet of Christianity is that we all fall short of being able to faithfully follow its tenets.
Um. No. The main tenent of Christianity is NOT that we're so flawed that we should prepare people for when they succumb to temptation (aka: sin). I can't believe you'd actually suggest with a straight fact that Christianity's main tenent is to PREPARE PEOPLE FOR SIN. Have you ONCE read the New Testament at all?

For the record, the main tenent of Christianity is that Jesus is the Son of God and that on the Third Day he rose from the dead, in fulfullment of the scriptures.
I'm still shocked by the ignorance or perverse lunacy of people's ideas about Christianity on this blog. The idea that its main tenent is that we're so unperfect so that we should prepare you for when you sin... it's just so STUPID. Sheesh....

Actually, the original poster was entirely correct. What Mr. Carton leaves out of his response is why, exactly, Jesus the Son of God died and rose - as I recall from Sunday school, it was because all of humanity is infected with original sin (except for Mary), and that we are entirely incapable of saving ourselves due to this fact.

I'll admit I left the Church a good long while ago, but that seems to have been the gist of it. Thus the original poster (sorry, I forget who it was) was perfectly justified in listing human imperfection as the major tennent of Christianity (especially since the schism between Catholicism and Protestantism is due in part to how one makes up for original sin through Christ's sacrifice - belief or the confessional?).

On the main topic of the post - I'm not quite twenty yet, and thanks to a lot of moves as a kid, I've been through abstinence only, information-based, and so on, and I gotta say that the informative ones were generally associated with high schools and middle schools that weren't gripped by gonorhea and herpes epidemics. If kids are going to do it, they're going to do it, and they might as well do a condom. The amount of sex, and the time of virginity loss, of every single person I know correlates a lot more directly to their relationship with their parents and views taught at home than anything their schools instructed them in.

Has anyone checked to see if the statistics that indicate that abs only education leads to a one-year delay in intercourse are controlled for family situation, personal religious views, etc? Maybe abstinence-only happens to be taught more frequently at schools where both the students and the parents have strong religious views, and the parents lay down the sort of rules that make illicit affairs more difficult?

40% of the votes for Bush were from evangelical Christians. Any way you look at it, the majority of the people who voted for Bush prefer abstinence. As the policy is up to him, it seems to make perfect sense that he would do what his voters want. If you don't like the policy, vote for Kerry. Maybe we can start handing out condoms in kindergarten.

Forty percent isn't a majority and I highly doubt that 100% of people who describe themselves as "evangelical" would agree with the proposition that sex between two unmarried people is always wrong, regardless of the age of the participants, whether they've been married before or whether they're in a long term committed relationship.

TFKW -

You know, I was going to say "Oh, be fair, you know that's not what Dale Carpenter meant by 'biblical'" but then I looked at the language of the regulation, and it says abstinence is "voluntarily choosing not to..." etc., etc. So what about when the sex is involuntary? If I'm hosting two strangers and a gang of guys are banging on my door demanding that I let them "know" these strangers, and I offer instead to send out my virgin daughters for the men to "know" as they see fit...can I provide the men outside my door with condoms? I'd sure feel better about the whole situation if everyone was practicing safe sex.

Smithy says this was meant to be a Christian nation. I think he was wrong.

It was meant to be a Jewish nation.

Back to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

The point is that the guidelines require educators to say that all sex outside marriage is wrong, regardless of the age of the participants, whether their relationship is monogamous and whether they have been married before. It's an idiotic, hopelessly unrealistic message whether it's being preached to high school students or anyone else. Teenagers have very highly attuned BS detectors that will be going off the scale when someone tries to "teach" them this. Personally I'd be asking the teacher how old he was when he got married and whether he was a virgin on his wedding night.

Why would that possibly be relevant?

Do you think George Bush, the head of the executive branch that promulgated this regulation, had never had sex before marrying Laura? How about Dick Cheney? How many Senators or members of the House were virgins until marriage? Telling teenagers to adhere to a standard that virtually all adults completely ignore is no way to instill values in them. It simply compromises the educator's credbility on all issues.

Of course it doesn't. Values are aspirational. We teach children what they should do -- knowing that they will fall short sometimes, knowing that we will fall short sometimes. It's not "BS" to tell them that they should do something that's hard to do. That's the _only_ way to instill values in them.

Telling them that because people fall short, they shouldn't try might be a good way to avoid the dreaded charge of "hypocrisy," but it doesn't really instill any value at all.

You wouldn't tell kids "Try not to use racial slurs too much," would you?

Personally I'd be asking the teacher how old he was when he got married and whether he was a virgin on his wedding night.

Why would that possibly be relevant?

Because if you're trying to convince teenagers that sex before marriage is a bad idea, the fact that you, the teacher, had sex before marriage yet somehow managed to avoid the raft of horrors predicted by the Falwell types behind this regulation seems directly relevant to me. I'd call it Exhibit #1 in the case against the proposition that sex outside of marriage is a bad idea.

SLS 1L,

And don't forget abortion . . . it is entirely possible, indeed likely, that choosing an ineffective sexual education policy will lead to more abortions.

Most of this discussion is involving speculation and ideas on a perfect world. perhaps we should consult someone such as Dan Savage, the sex columnist. He has written quite often that the 'no sex until marriage' thing is way overrated. Why?

He states that you would not believe the number of letters he gets from women who waited until marriage to have sex, and they have been faithful throughout their marriage. But after 5-10 years, they are incredibly bored with the same old sex. They are dying to know what sex would be like with another guy. They basically want a way to have sex with another guy without cheating on their husband. Of course, they can't. Savage has some recommendations for these women, but he also states that it is very often GOOD to have sex before marriage, and with several partners, so that you can become experienced and better at sex. Then when you settle down, you know exactly what you are getting into.

Another point that is missing in this debate -- The social conservatives who run the federal governmnet HATE the fact that some people engage in homosexual activity, whether they are gay or not, and they want to stamp it out in any fashion that they can. This is a direct attack at all people who are gay, or experimenting. Why? Because they just really really hate gays. And that is no reason to base an federal program. Certainly not with my tax dollars involved.

Cornellian writes:

Forty percent isn't a majority and I highly doubt that 100% of people who describe themselves as "evangelical" would agree with the proposition that sex between two unmarried people is always wrong, regardless of the age of the participants, whether they've been married before or whether they're in a long term committed relationship.

I'm not aware of any evangelical church that teaches that sex between unmarried person is okay. Some of the mainstream churches, like the United Methodists, probably don't have a problem with this, but then again, they aren't normally considered evangelical churches.

Cornellian writes:

You, skeptical teenager, should listen when the federal government tells you that sex outside marriage is really bad, something always to be avoided, despite the fact that I, the teacher telling you this had sex outside of marriage and not only survived, but went on to become a teacher and normal, functioning, law abiding member of society. So did my parents. So did your parents. So did President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. So did virtually every Senator and member of the House. Yep, all those hundreds of people had sex outside of marriage with no apparent ill effects, but you can't. Or shouldn't. Bad things will happen to you, even though they didn't happen to any of us. You can trust us. We're grown ups.

You are making some assumptions about "virtually every Senator and member of the House." Unless you have some evidence to back up this claim....

This may surprise you, but there are an enormous number of people who take their marriage vows and "long-term committments" very seriously. While not as common, there are still couples out there who get married as virgins--and a fair number for whom their only premarital sex was with the person that they married.

In any case, I've lost count of the number of people I know who smoked pot in high school or college and who think they made a terrible mistake. I know more than a few people who look back with a mixture of horror, disgust, and relief that we survived the 1970s without picking up an STD. Sometimes, people learn from their mistakes, and do their best to encourage their children not to make the same mistakes. This doesn't make them hypocrites. I gues that you were prefer that every generation make the mistakes of the past without any warnings like, "This caused some damage to my generation--you would be better off without it."

Clayton, I think the argument is that Jefferson and the rest of the founders of the United States of America were fairly secular, not that the founders of the individual states were. I think the U.S. Constitution is a beautiful document for many reasons, among them its brevity and its implied seperation of church and state. The Constitution of North Carolina apparently didn't have those virtues -- so? Maybe that's one of the reasons nobody celebrates the founding fathers of South Carolina.

Your ignorance of history is showing. Jefferson was certainly one of the most secular of the Founders--by modern standards, he would be squarely in the mainstream of a liberal church like the United Methodists. He also had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. (He was in France at the time.)

There is nothing "implied" about separation of church and state in the First Amendment. The same Congress that passed the First Amendment demonstrated repeatedly that they did not believe in such a separation. Non-establishment is quite a bit different from the ACLU's notion of "separation of church and state."

Pretending that the Framers were substantially different from the people that wrote the state constitutions is absurd.

Also, despite that fact that "the notion that America was founded by a lot of non-Christians is very popular in homosexual circles," I am not, in fact, homosexual. Amazing, isn't it? If your remember, I'm also the guy who doesn't think there's anything wrong, or even rare, about kinky sex. And yet -- not gay! Your head must have exploded by now, I know.

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." There have been a few too many sex changes take place among commenters here for me to completely believe you.

In any case, lying about history is a fundamental part of homosexual legal challenges. I am not surprised that liberals would commend it.

Clatyon,

There's a big difference between, "evangelical churches teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong," and "actual evangelicals believe sex outside of marriage is wrong." Certainly, judging by their behavior, most Americans don't see a big moral problem with sex outside of marriage, per se. Maybe they don't like teen sex or gay sex or prostitition or promiscuous sex or whatever, but most people do a bit of pre-marital humping in their lifetimes, and they don't seem too conflicted about it.

1. How do you know that they aren't conflicted about it? I certainly meet people who have done things that they know are wrong--but they did them anyway. Of course, you may not have a problem with this, if you define that anything you want to do is therefore right.

2. Evangelical Christians aren't born that way. There's a saying that college is when, "Wild kids go Christian and Christian kids go wild." I've seen a lot of it. (I've experienced it.) A lot of people do things in their teens and early 20s that they later recognize were dumb, immoral, or foolish. A lof evangelical Christians have done things at one time in their life that they now would like to discourage others from doing--just to reduce unnecessary pain.

By the way, the text of Franklin's letter to Ezra Stiles is here.
Franklin is definitely among the more liberal thinkers of his day on religion--and he knew full well that exposing that liberalism would not go over well:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals, and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England some doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.

...

P.S.... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and as I have never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all.

Clayton,

We're arguing from different first principles. I don't think there's any reason that having sex with one's significant other, outside of marriage, could be called "wrong." It doesn't seem to correlate even one bit with wehther one is a good person. Now, adulterly certainly does, but that's not what we're talking about. The only objection to consensual, regular-old sex between adults who aren't married is a religious one -- and that's why it has no place in the public schools.

jvarisco,

The fact that there is some risk associated with an activity is not enough to show that no one should participate in that activity. Indeed, by that standard, no one could ever justify crossing the street.

Of course, your hidden assumption is that there is no conceivable benefit to any nonmarital sex under any circumstances, such that the benefits of engaging in nonmarital sex might sometimes outweigh the associated risk. And although you might not share this view, you are undoubtedly aware that many people think nonmarital sex, at least in some circumstances, can be healthy, enjoyable, and generally beneficial.

I am an umarried man in my late 20s who has had sex, mostly in the confines of serious committed relationships but also while casually dating (in between relationships). And I've also used a few drugs, though nothing too frequently. I drink once in a while.

Oh how my soul is tortured by the risks I run! All of my horrible foul acts slowly poison me, rotting my character, eroding my morality. Even though I haven't contracted a sexually transmitted disease, I've acquired something much worse -- a disease of the spirit, crushing me, cutting me off from God and other decent law-abiding human beings.

Oh sure, it's been "fun," and I'm a "happy person who enjoys life," but that's just massive self-deception at work. I'm really a poor sufferer who is tormented by my immoral choices, even though they haven't harmed anyone, and in fact have made people happier. Woe is me!

You know what would make this world a better place? If sex carried with it more consequences, so that it was harder to avoid pregnancy and disease. Oh yeah, because then I would have some real incentives to avoid my immoral behavior, instead of living like a soulless deviant who is able to pretend that everything is OK and fine.

(Side comment: my favorite Volokh post of all time would have to be the one about whether it is reasonable to talk about gays recruiting people, where the reasonable law professor carefully established that gays indeed try to recruit people, but that it was actually reasonable for them to do so. Brilliant.)

When the Constitutional Congress cast their eyes around the colonies, they saw those with Christianity explicitly required in their constitutions and THEY CLEARLY REJECTED THAT APPROACH.

Wise men, Christians and non-.

Clayton,

We're arguing from different first principles. I don't think there's any reason that having sex with one's significant other, outside of marriage, could be called "wrong." It doesn't seem to correlate even one bit with wehther one is a good person. Now, adulterly certainly does, but that's not what we're talking about. The only objection to consensual, regular-old sex between adults who aren't married is a religious one -- and that's why it has no place in the public schools.

Just about every criminal statute we have is based on a religious principle. Legislating morality is what law is.

Jon Rowe writes:

Yes, and the Founders also thought it was utterly tyrannical that the masses had this power over what clearly belonged in the realm of personal opinion. In England, not too culturally different than America at the time, it was a crime to publicly deny the Trinity until 1813.

And yet it was several decades before states changed their laws to conform to your claim about their views. By the way, blasphemy was still a crime in New York State until about 1815, as I recall. It appears that these laws stuck around even later in other places. Maryland's 1879 Revised General Code still has a blasphemy law:

If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.

The statute was apparently passed in 1819, and may not have been much prosecuted by 1879--but it does suggest that your view of the influence of the Framers wasn't shared by the people that wrote the laws.

Yet, virtually all of America's key Whig Founders were theological Unitarians (thus, according to Clayton Cramer himself, outside the realm of "Christianity"). Ironic, isn't it, that our Founders religious views, had they been known, could have publicly ruined them, disqualified them for under various state's religious tests, and gotten them into legal trouble under various state laws.

It suggests that you are incorrect about their beliefs, or that the "key Whig Founders" you are using were pretty exceptional among the movers and shakers of their time.

But Madison not only had *something* to do with writing the Constitution, but is commonly referred to as its architect. And Madison's views on the First Amendment and the doctrine of Separation are more or less the same as Jefferson's.

But both Madison and Jefferson, as President, operated in a manner that shows that they did not share the ACLU's view of what "separation of church and state" means.

Clayton wrote:

STDs. Pregnancy. Kids having sex who are not emotionally ready for it, and the rather strong and sometimes conflicting emotions that come from it. These are the reasons for encouraging kids to wait at least until they are legally adults. The STDs and unwanted pregnancies are also good reasons for adults to regard sex as something a bit more special than blowing your nose.

And if that's what the policy actually said, it would have wide support from those who are currently disagreeing with it. I could happily support a policy that said:

Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: "Because of the risk of sexually-transmitted diseases and pregnancy, as well as the emotional and psychological dangers that can be caused by abortion, STDs and early sexual activity itself, teenagers are encouraged to avoid genital contact or sexual stimulation until they are legally adults, and preferably until marriage. Unmarried adult students should also be reminded of the dangers of STDs and unwanted pregnancy and reminded that while various birth control methods can reduce the spread of either one, only abstinence from sexual activity is 100% effective in preventing both."

Fact of the matter is, I'm surprised that there haven't been more arguments from the RIGHT against the new policy as written, given its tacit support of teenage masturbation "Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons." People have joked about "so are three-ways okay," but no one has acknowledged the fact that inclusion of "two persons" in the definition is to specifically but indirectly give a green light to masturbation. So even in this era of new repression, times have changed.

The following isn't a slam on this comment thread so much as the culture wars in general. The culture wars infect every societal problem, and reformulate them into a good guy vs. bad guy political issue. Fund-raising is more profitable, and constituents get to feel more righteous, but it is irresponsible and wasteful.

We are talking about homosexuality, but the *actual* topic of debate (should be) curriculum. In 2003, 14% of adults were functionally illiterate, and less than 1/3 were "proficient" (the highest level). Illiteracy is a massive problem, perhaps - in a close tie with mathematics - the largest failure of our educational system.

WHY are we spending time and money lobbying for curriculum regulations on how/when/who kids should be having sex with? Given how hard it is to make kids care about school, and the bullshit cynicism they apply to everything that comes out of a teacher's mouth, why don't we have teachers focus on things that they can plausibly instruct kids in? Like reading, writing, and arithmatic? e.g. Make every class an english class - the different subject matters don't matter so much as the student's reading comprehension. You're worried about graduate's ability to function in a democracy? Well, news-flash: the average kid is self-absorbed and generally doesn't care about social issues (liberal or conservative) until very late in high school. If you ensure that they enjoy reading by that time, public debate will be much better informed than whatever is contributed by a half-illiterate kid who has been spoon-fed whatever crap federal regulations have prescribed for the last 12 years.

The reason we lobby/regulate what teachers tell kids about sex is because the culture war's primary response to every situation is to focus public debate upon profitable issues of its own choosing. In the (rare) event that solutions are proposed for actual problem, they convert it into a cultural conflict. (e.g. "liberal" versus "conservative" teaching methods.) It lets us all feel righteous, but it is irresponsible. I, for one, have contributed to it, but I now regret it. How much time and energy has been wasted.

Anyway, I have enjoyed reading this comment thread. I've learned about religion, history, etc. Subjects such as whether legislating morality is permissible or desirable, whether homosexuality is good or bad, what the founding fathers thought etc. is all interesting. But the *actual* subject here is regulation of our educational system. The culture wars have an interest in diverting attention from mainstream solutions to its problems, because they want us all divided into 2 pots of funding. So sex and homosexuality become the issue. What crap.

Medis) I am not saying you should not. Nor that anyone should not. Just that kids in public school should be told not to, the same as they are told not to do drugs. They need to be made aware of the risks, and as they are often too young to appreciate them, they also need to be told not to engage in them.

Broncos) The problem is that any sex ed program is legislating morality. You either say it's wrong, or it's not wrong. Both are oppositional moral positions. If we must choose one, we should choose that of the majority of voters. Teachers are not allowed to teach that Christianity is true - but neither are they allowed to teach that Christianity is false.

Well, we wouldn't even have to discuss homosexuality if every school and teacher and adminstration simply accepted gays students as equally as they accept straight students, right? I mean, the culture wars could end right now and we could get on with discussing philosophy and what not. Hell, I agree we should be teaching those things!

But then we have the federal government saying that gay sex is unacceptable under any circumstances. Perhaps to you, a heterosexual, that seems hardly like a big issue. But to a gay student, that is saying that HE or SHE is unacceptable. Why? Because we don't choose our sexuality, and our identity as people is tightly bound up with our sexuality. Don't believe it? Then just call any straight boy "gay" and see what reaction you get out of him.

The problem is that gay students have stood up and demanded to be treated as equally as straight students, and some people have resisted that. Therein lies the tension and so much wasted energy. Gay people are gay people, and nothing is going to change that -- the sooner people realize that the sooner we can all move on with our lives. Until that day, however, we must struggle against the ignorance.

Well, don't forgot -- many people say that the schools should be teaching morality, ethics, values and the like. Once you get into that arenas, you are going to have a big debate.

Although you make a good point, that schools should concentrate on the basics, the fact is that there are some students who are bullies and tease other students. Schools should take steps to stop that, as every kid should feel safe and be educated in a nonthreatening atmosphere. And who do kids bully? Usually the minorities, often the gay kids.

If you were a parent whose kid got killed Columbine, would you argue that schools should teach only the basics, or would you say that schools should help identify troubled kids and counsel them?

You might argue that that is not curriculum. But I argue it is very difficult to separate curriculum from other activities. Schools are a part of our society, and they need to address the issues that society confronts. Teach only science? ha! Some jurisdictions want to teach creationism, under it's various guises, in place of science. This is a cultural issues, and our schools are no vacuum.

jvarisco,

You say: "Medis) I am not saying you should not. Nor that anyone should not. Just that kids in public school should be told not to, the same as they are told not to do drugs. They need to be made aware of the risks, and as they are often too young to appreciate them, they also need to be told not to engage in them."

But originally we were talking about telling kids not to engage in sex until they are married. Now it sounds like you want to tell kids not to engage in nonmarital sex until they are adults. In that sense, "drugs" is the wrong analogy, if by that you mean illegal drugs. It now sounds more like you want to adopt our message with respect to something like drinking alcoholic beverages (that it is too risky for kids, but OK for adults).

Personally, I think that message about sex (the one we use for alcohol: OK for adults, bad for kids) will also be ineffective and counter-productive--see my post above on age-appropriate sexual development, and also comments from others about why telling teens that an activity is associated with adulthood might in fact encourage rather than discourage them. For that matter, I think our experience with alcohol suggests that we should also look to learn something from those other cultures which gradually introduce children to alcohol, rather than trying to treat it as something for adults only.

But in any event, a "for adults only" message would be far less controversial than the message we have been discussing here, which is "for married people only".

This is not in fact the case. I would openly concede that many, even most, of the people who have sex outside of marriage face no consequences. But the fact is that it is risky. Most people who do drugs grow up and do fine. But some of them die. It is because of those few people that no one should - because it is a risk that should not be taken. I could have sex without protection, and I might get a disease, or I might get a girl pregnant. But if there were 100 people who did it, and only 20 got dieases or caused pregnancy, it would STILL be bad a thing that kids should be told not to do. Some kids might use protection, but some won't, and of those, some will be harmed. Therefore they should all be told not to do it at all.

So why don't well tell kids never to drive a car, lest they get into a traffic accident? Never eat sushi because raw food is riskier than cooked food? Never go skiiing because they might have an accident? Never take a job on a construction site because they might get hurt?

Heck on that logic, why say it's ok to have sex once you're married? Lots of spouses cheat, your spouse might be cheating on you, pick up a disease and infect you. Surely the only safe message we should be telling our kids is abstinence for life whether married or not. Reproduction will be via artificial insemination, after the sperm is carefully screened for diseases. It's the only way to be safe.