Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Obamacare & Abstinance-Only Sexual Education

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 9:37pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

There are three problems with the bills passed by Congress:
1. Representatives are not required to read an entire bill before voting it into law.
Here's a bill that would require politicians to read bills in their entirety.
2. Compromises - When democrats want one thing, and republicans want another, they will often compromise. Democrats will be allowed to pass law A, but in return they must also add Law B to a bill, or else they wont receive republican votes.
3. Federal bills are allowed to contain multiple subjects. Read more about the Single Subject Rule here.

This thread is not about Obamacare as a whole, but Abstinence- Only Education. The merits of socialized healthcare should be discussed elsewhere.

Hidden inside the Affordable Care Act is a provision that demands a return of Abstinence-Only Sex programs in public secondary education. This provision was added by a republican. There's no doubt in my mind that this republican would have voted against the bill had they not pandered to their desire.

To make matters worse, some states have passed laws to help enforce this program!

At the same time, a number of states " Texas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin among them " are launching aggressive legislative efforts to promote abstinence-only education. In Tennessee, for instance, a bill that passed the house and senate in April 2012 specifies that teachers must "exclusively and emphatically" endorse abstinence, or face a $500 fine. The bill stipulates that contraceptives may be discussed only as an inferior means of preventing pregnancy and disease. The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" " such as holding hands or hugging.

Did you catch that last part?

The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" " such as holding hands or hugging.

IT'S ILLEGAL FOR TEACHERS TO ALLOW TEENAGERS TO HUG AND HOLD HANDS IN SCHOOL! I need say no more.

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 9:42pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 10:10pm

BRAAINZz

BRAAINZz

600 posts

This is just stupid and needs to be repealed immediately. They should be able to engage in holding hands! I'm serious, this is quite the large amount of bull**** to take in. Making hugging and other innocent activities to express love is just plain out dumb.

Basically all this does is make sure that teenagers leave their secondary education unknowing about the many things that are out there. They won't be taught about STDs, proper protection, or even what to do.

I also don't see what will be achieved by this. I really hope that generation Y isn't dumb enough to accept whatever crap is shoved down their throats. I really hope for my generation.

IT'S ILLEGAL FOR TEACHERS TO ALLOW TEENAGERS TO HUG AND HOLD HANDS IN SCHOOL! I need say no more.

Somewhat related, in my school you can see guys (sometimes girl) touching other parts of the fairer sex. Canada.

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 10:39pm

Santi_

Santi_

444 posts

Well, it seems to be occuring more widespread over the country. I was taught similar "abstinence-only" as it was referred to, within school.
As well as two cousins in Georgia, and one in New York.

As far as I know, hugging or most physical contact with other students at my high school leads to suspension. At the middle school I used to go to, teachers explained to the class that the "no hugging policy" was to "save time" or some other bs. I can understand that showing affection in more drastic terms such as cuddling and kissing can be distractive (not that some still achieve it), but here it's a little extreme.

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 10:54pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,843 posts

Knight

Like parents will actually bother to sue the school. What a stupid clause by a morally judgmental politician.

 

Posted Aug 19, '12 at 11:45pm

Krill11

Krill11

99 posts

Ooookay, that is a "little bit" extreme. The government should know that this is definitely going to come back to bite them. The schools are funded by the government; therefore they are setting themselves up for big sues.

How on earth could that be made legal? Kids are going to do things that they should not, no matter of the strict rules or the enforcement afterword. And it really should be the parents that talk to kids about abstinence, but then again, I guess that there should be a CLASS about it. That isn't much of a threat anyway, at least not for the kids. And then you will have the professional sue-er’s that will tell their kids to kiss every one of the opposite sex, just so that they can get doe. Wow, this country’s government really doesn’t need to control everything……

The concept is good, but the going about it is absolutely horrid. I believe in abstinence, but really? Holding hands is outlawed in schools? And a lot of hugs aren’t even hugs of affection, just of friendship.

~Krill11

 

Posted Aug 20, '12 at 7:05am

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,943 posts

Knight

This is not only stupid, but also dangerous as it shows that religious fundamentalists are still trying to find ways to influence children through school as much as possible; and we all know this is bad.

I find the Guardian article very interesting and pertinent. What is more to say than that which is written in there? I really like the conclusion:

Empathy comes from understanding, not from indoctrination in stereotypes. In spite of what the "new puritans" are telling us, the path to virtue passes through knowledge, not blind obedience.

You may or may not be for abstinence, but one thing is clear: the students need to choose abstinence, and for that they need to know about what they're dealing with.

 

Posted Aug 20, '12 at 11:47am

Kasic

Kasic

5,566 posts

Honestly, I've pretty much run dry on any sort of hope for people. It's all so, so obvious. The data is there, but people don't ever think, they just follow what they've blindly been told or believe without ever questioning it. Clogging up the system and forcing conflicting and harmful additions to be made in laws and bills simply because they're as mature as a 4 year old shows why we have all these issues.

Learn to work together, and do something that works, instead of raging when what is wanted isn't what's possible at the moment, or isn't going to work. Congress is basically a bunch of toddlers whining at each other and picking sides while fighting over some broken toys.

...Sorry for the rant. On to the subject specifically.

The bill stipulates that contraceptives may be discussed only as an inferior means of preventing pregnancy and disease.

Not only is this a flat out lie, it's dangerous. Contraceptives have time and time and time again proven to be the most effective way of preventing pregnancies in a population. People have sex. That's what we do. Acting like people are going to not simply because you tell them abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancy is naive and fails to account for human nature.

The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" ��" such as holding hands or hugging.

Gateway sexual behavior huh. Well, in that case, let's gouge out everyone's eyes, that way there won't be a problem with revealing clothing, which is arguably a much more defined issue in teen pregnancies.

 

Posted Aug 20, '12 at 11:59am

Uysername

Uysername

32 posts

This is way too retarded not to be repealed.

The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" �" such as holding hands or hugging.

Actually, wait. It's just the right amount.

 

Posted Aug 20, '12 at 5:10pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

Learn to work together, and do something that works, instead of raging when what is wanted isn't what's possible at the moment, or isn't going to work. Congress is basically a bunch of toddlers whining at each other and picking sides while fighting over some broken toys.

It's hard for both sides to work together on creating a well structured bill because both sides often disagree with each other. The only way they can work with each other is to compromise. Democrats get A (such as Obamacare), Republicans get B (such as Abstinence-Only Education). I believe the issue isn't so much that they need to work together, I think the issue is that they compromise. They don't vote for bills they feel reflect their views as a whole, they vote for bills in which they can achieve their own personal agenda no matter what the price, even if it means supporting laws that go against their views.

 
Reply to Obamacare & Abstinance-Only Sexual Education

You must be logged in to post a reply!