What actually works is teaching kids to forego sex until they are physically, psychologically, and financially ready for it, without using superstitious reasons such as "sex is evil", "sex is the work of the devil", "sex makes jebus cry", "purity is god-like", etc.

So, Chad, tell us. Did you practice "abstinence" before you were married, or just "self-report" you did. Did you live up to the high moral standards you expect impulsive, hormone-crazed teens to live up to now?

Oh, I get it now. Sorry I missed a fine distinction in your post, Duane.

Your Sixth Commandment really says "Thou Shalt Not MURDER" instead of "kill" and "the authorities" get to decide the difference.

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013&version=NIV

Hence, governments established police forces and armies to use "the sword" (i.e., lethal force) against drug dealers, serial killers, gang members, terrorists and other evidoers who kill their citizens.

I hope that clears things up.

Posted by: duane1061
_________________________--

Thanks for the explanation, Duane, but it does not clear it up for me. Are you saying alliegance to "the authorities" (whomevewr they are, however they got into power and however good or evil they may be) trumps the Sixth Commandment? Hitler was an "authority" Did your cherry-picked scripture apply to him as well?

Are you saying some killing, like abortion, is killing but other killing, like capital punishment, is not killing?

Abstinence education may be right, but it has been shown conclusively that it doesn't work. Only Focus on the Family and those who think like it, whose opinions preclude them from ever considering evidence objectively, could claim otherwise. Facts are stubborn things, even more stubborn than religious zealots who reject science and critical thinking.

"Facts on Contraceptive Use

www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
January 2008

WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?

• 62 million U.S. women (and men?) are in their childbearing years (15–44).[1]

• 43 million women (and men) of reproductive age, or 7 in 10, are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they or their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.[2]

• The typical U.S. woman (man?) wants only 2 children. To achieve this goal, she (he?) must use contraceptives for roughly 3 decades.[3]

WHO USES CONTRACEPTIVES?

• Virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.[2](and men?)

• Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using one.[2] (and men)

• 31% of the 62 million women (and men?) do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active.[2]

• Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk of unwanted pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.[2] (and men?)

• Among the 42 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.[2] (and men?)

WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN (men?) USE?

• 64% of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use reversible methods, such as oral contraceptives or condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]

FIRST-YEAR CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES

Percentage of women (men?) experiencing an unintended pregnancy (a few examples)

Method
Typical
Pill (combined) 8.7
Tubal sterilization 0.7
Male condom 17.4
Vasectomy 0.2

Periodic abstinence – 25.3
Calendar 9.0 –
Ovulation Method 3.0 –
Sympto-thermal 2.0 –
Post-ovulation 1.0 –

No method 85.0"

(Abstinence) 0

(Masturbation) 0

[coloradodog wrote:

I have no problem with you declaring that it is "right" For you, capital punishment and pre-emptive war is "right", too, even though your Sixth Commandment says it's not.]

Actually, the Sixth Commandment applies only to murder. God is okay with governments using lethal force to protect their citizens.

Read Romans 13:1-5:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013&version=NIV

Hence, governments established police forces and armies to use "the sword" (i.e., lethal force) against drug dealers, serial killers, gang members, terrorists and other evidoers who kill their citizens.

I hope that clears things up.

Mr. Hills should be fired for not reporting his "evidence" correctly. The "evidence" comes from an HIV/STD risk reduction study clinical NCT00640653 (clinicaltrials.gov). In the cited article "Effectiveness of an Abstinence-Only HIV/Sexually Transmitted Disease Risk-Reduction Intervention for Young African-American Adolescents" the authors do conclude that
"The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group." Let's look closer at the two groups based on the clinical. Group 1 participants received the abstinence-only HIV/STD risk-reduction intervention and the control group, group 5, participants received information focused on reducing risk of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and certain cancers (no mention of HIV/STD at all). When it comes to postponing sexual behavior in preteens which factor is really influencing behavior of group 1 versus the control group, abstinence or the risk of getting HIV/STDS? I would argue that it is just as likely if not more likely that
the model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in HIV/STD risk-reduction intervention group, group 1, and 48.5% in the control group, group 5, NO HIV/STD risk-reduction intervention. What do you think, does telling kids to be abstinent to reduce the risk of HIV/STDS delay their having sexual intercourse more that simply telling them to maintain a healthy life style (no discussion about abstinence, but more importantly, no discussion of HIV/STD risk-reduction?

What we need to do is encourage kids to live out healthy sexuality -- and yes, that includes abstinence until marriage -- and then give them "permission" to get married earlier in life! Abstinence is a whole lot harder if you think you need to wait until you're 40, but more doable when you know it's OK to get married at 22 while a senior in college. Get married, start your family, build your career, and forego all the emotional pain and diseases brought on by irresponsible sexual flings. It's a lot happier for folks who do things the old-fashioned way and who have a faith to hold on to when life gets tough.
Posted by: Denise9

While it is possible to juggle marriage, children, both spouses working to pay the rent, AND both spouses taking a a full-time academic load, it's not easy, and the stress of trying to keep that many balls in the air is enough to break up many a couple.

The whole family had a good chuckle when my cousin who had signed a "virginity pledge" and worn a special ring throughout her teenage years got knocked up out of wedlock. Guess her mom feels pretty dumb now for mentioning the pledge in her annual Christmas letter. Instead this year we got a mass email to the whole family about how her daughter had shamed her. Good times!

Meanwhile those of us on the other side of the family that learned about birth control and responsible practices didn't get pregnant until AFTER we were married.

Your "evidence" is your darling little godlings "self-reporting" Just because you delusionally believe they are always honest doesn't mean its so. What are they going to tell you - that they have a little romp in the back seats of their cars after Bible study?

I have no problem with you declaring that it is "right" For you, capital punishment and pre-emptive war is "right", too, even though your Sixth Commandment says it's not.

The problem here is not giving youngsters all the tools to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies that only graphic sex education including how to use of condoms has.

I was shocked then pleasantly surprised that here in Mexico, a predominately Catholic country, my middle school English classroom had graphic student-made posters of reproductive and sexual anatomy along with drawing of the causes and effects of all the STD's. Prudish Huckabee bullies in the US would be up in arms encountering such reality. Which country is really backward?

Maybe the Pope thinks condoms cause AIDS but jamming your theocratic propaganda down the rest of our throats without scientific facts to supplement the prevention of STD's and unwanted pregnancy is just plain criminally irresponsible, narrow minded and hypocritical.
It tells me you don't love your children as you pretend to do - it tells me you love your dogma and self-righteousness more.

Your church taught you abstinence when you were a teen. Did you practice it or just "self-report" that you did?

While you shouldn't rush into marriage, it's senseless to needlessly delay it, too. Who says you can't study or build your career at the same time you build your marriage? For generations men and women have worked together to reach their goals and their dreams, and now, all of a sudden, we're telling teens to delay their legitimate hopes of marriage and family for financial goals. Know what? A big house, a European vacation and designer jeans won't make you as happy as a family.

What we need to do is encourage kids to live out healthy sexuality -- and yes, that includes abstinence until marriage -- and then give them "permission" to get married earlier in life! Abstinence is a whole lot harder if you think you need to wait until you're 40, but more doable when you know it's OK to get married at 22 while a senior in college. Get married, start your family, build your career, and forego all the emotional pain and diseases brought on by irresponsible sexual flings. It's a lot happier for folks who do things the old-fashioned way and who have a faith to hold on to when life gets tough.

Re: "It also doesn't help young adults that their parents and the culture encourage them to put education and career ahead of marriage and family, thus driving the average age of marriage well beyond the mid-20s."

It's really not an "either-or" proposition. Yet, we are so accustomed these days to a "binary" approach to marriage and career. It's as if the two are necessarily pitted against each other -- so much so that 20-somethings have no model (or the supportive structures) which afford them the vision or tools to aspire concurrently to *both*...doing both sufficiently and well.

Yes, of course, it's prudent to get established with a solid educational/vocational plan. And by all means, get the degree! But this nearly monolithic approach (urged often by well-meaning parents) of eclipsing family aspirations with career is a mis-match with the good-and-natural human biological clock. This assumed approach caters more to the values of the *economy* over and above the realities etched into our bodies and even into our hearts (as beings who deeply desire, need and benefit from committed lifelong relationship.)

A more balanced, non-binary message to youth about career vs family would indeed be healthy for young adults as they steward their sexual choices. I agree.

' It also doesn't help young adults that their parents and the culture encourage them to put education and career ahead of marriage and family, thus driving the average age of marriage well beyond the mid-20s.'

And what is a young man supposed to work in today's economy without an education? Or when you say young adults, you mean - girls...not to go to school, not to work, but to hurry to get married...

Abstinence-only education for 6th and 7th graders is a helluva lot different than abstinence-only education for high school aged teens.

Why do they call it "theory-based"? Does that mean focusing on the negative effects of premarital sex instead of the morality of premarital sex?

Either way is fine with me, whatever works, I was just curious about the qualifier the authors threw in there.

"It also doesn't help young adults that their parents and the culture encourage them to put education and career ahead of marriage and family, thus driving the average age of marriage well beyond the mid-20's."

Since higher education improves the prospect for a decent-paying job, and since a job oftne provides benefits such as health insurance, not to mention steady income, why would you NOT want your children to get a degree, establish a career, and have some finacial stability before marrying and/or having children?