If the Government recommends singles not have sex until age 30, is their concern with your health or morality?

Question

The new guideline from the Department of Health and Human Services advises states to help single people in their twenties to steer clear of sexual relations in their fifty million dollar funded Abstinence Education Program. It is not a 'requirement' but a strong suggestion to states to promote this.

When asked, the reason given for this program from the Dept of Health and Human Services is to combat a rise in out-of-wedlock births.

Please share your thoughts and opinions on this.

Answer 1

You are kidding right? Contraception is not just a thirteen letter word.

Oh and the unintended pun in the first comment, apparantly christian girls are now having anal sex more than non-christians because they think it technically preserves their virginity!

Answer 2

Hey, Barbara,

Snap out of it! It isn't about religion or morality or good government. It's a power trip. This way politicians elected by the superstuitious can go to the snake-handling conventions and claim that they, the politians, are on the "side" of the "light" and doing something about it.

In spite of the fact that it's a waste of money, insulting to human dignity, and shows a stuifyingly stupid lack of understanding of human nature to blow fifty mill on silly trash like this "Abstinence Education Program." What a laughable white elephant.

Answer 3

ninety 5% of person human beings have had premarital intercourse. This discern hasn't replaced in extra suitable than 50 years, and it somewhat is no longer decrease for Christians. (a modern-day great scale Pew learn desperate) So- you're in a small team. it somewhat is unhappy that faith has imposed upon you a bronze age view of human sexuality, yet i'm happy you're coming to realize that this does not artwork for people alright. We take great exhilaration in being intimate with one yet another and it somewhat is a almost mandatory part of existence. a minimum of an emotionally pleasing one. try signing up for an internet dating provider. you will do high-quality. it somewhat is no longer approximately intercourse- it somewhat is approximately construction a loving dating. The intercourse will come and it would be best. don't be bothered over it.

Answer 4

Are they going to recommend that women wear all-over body garments too? You wouldn't want to be tempting the men now, would you?
I wonder how old GWBush's parents were when they had him? Perhaps they should have waited a bit longer.
Somone is making a lot of money out of this useless program. Put money into education for safe sex and contraception, rather than this rubbish, if you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Get out into the real world!!!

Answer 5

To me, it seems like an unrealistic solution to begin with. Because they're going for the extreme, it seems like they have an agenda that extends beyond the middle ground solution, i.e. contraception and sexual responsibility education. So I do think there is more moral motivation in this position than they're letting onto.

Answer 6

This is an endorsement of religious values if nothing else is. Religious doctrine is the only thing that requires people to have children in wedlock. I shouldn't have to be married to have kids. Hell, maybe marriage is outdated. But we do need to raise out voices to protest this at once.

I will ring your doorbell and run away!!!

Answer 7

Yeah. Population control.

Answer 8

Once again, we legislate common ******' sense. I personally have had more than enough of the politicians dictating what I can, as a moron, do.

Answer 9

Never heard of that, maybe they are running low on cash

Answer 10

I fully agree with them. I just wish everyone would listen and not depend on the government to figure it out for them. Read the Bible and pray and some of our problems will work themselves out because we listened to God.