Gay Patriot Header Image

“Abstinence Only” Sex Education Belongs to a Long Bygone Era*

Generally, if I post on a matter where I indicate that I share even the slightest bit of common ground with social conservatives, critics will come in as if out of the woodwork, making allegations about my views both at odds with my actual opinions and even (on occasion) at odds with things I actually said in the very post to which they attach their comments. And  so it was, when, in the past ninety-six hours, I posted on Adam Lambert and the latest Kevin Jennings “scandal.”

As to the former, first let me say that I’ve never heard him sing or seen him perform (save for a brief clip of his sexual simulation at the American Music Awards); I offer no commentary about his vocal talents.  Simply put, I don’t have a problem with ABC canceling his appearance on their network because they fear a repeat of his performance at those awards nor do I think it appropriate for a gay organization to take ABC to task for its actions.

And while I share the concerns expressed by some conservative bloggers about the content of the books on the list GLSEN, Jennings’ organization, provided for adolescents on its website, don’t let that concern mean I share those bloggers’ views on every issue involving gays (and sex).  I know that some of them, for example, support “abstinence only” sex education, a idea I believe to be counterproductive and outdated, particularly given a culture saturated by sex.

Now, I do have problem with sex education curricula which discourage teen abstinence and encourage them to be sexually active.

That said, whether we like it or not, teens are going to be having sex.  They need to know about contraception and STDs.  They also need to know that sex can be infinitely more rewarding when part of an intimate and loving relationship.   There are benefits to abstinence–and not just form from the point of view of preventing pregnancy and STDs.  Those should also be taught.

If, however, kids are only taught about abstinence, they likely won’t learn about the risks which inhere in sex.  In this culture saturated by sex, with pressure from their peers, with their own human desires, they’re going to act out their urges.  So, let them know the risks, but also let them know that they don’t need to have sex to prove themselves. (more…)

What Happened to Obama’s Concern About the Deficit?

Last week, he promised “bring down the deficit“:

Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I’ll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

Today, he promised to increase it:

President Barack Obama called for a major new burst of federal spending Tuesday, perhaps $150 billion or more, aiming to jolt the wobbly economy into a stronger recovery and reduce painfully persistent double-digit unemployment.

Despite Republican criticism concerning record federal deficits, Obama said the U.S. has had to “spend our way out of this recession” with so many people out of work but insisted he was still mindful of a need to confront soaring deficits.

Mindful of the need to confront soaring deficits?   That’s nice, but doesn’t do anything to reduce federal spending.  I’m mindful of feminine beauty, but a hot chick still doesn’t do for me what she does for my straight male friends.

It’s too bad Democrats remain in Spenderland, believing that government spending is the solution to all social problems.  If the president really wants to help put people back to work, he needs to do something which makes it easier for those institutions which best create new jobs to do just that.   That means, he need remove regulatory and tax burdens on small businesses.

To that end, it might be a good idea for his EPA to reconsider its declaration yesterday about carbon dioxide.  That’s just going to give the federal government one more tool with which to interfere with American enterprises.  And small businesses are not readily equipped to adapt to meet federal mandates nor to do the paperwork to show compliance with said mandates — nor to hire attorneys to challenge edicts handed down by federal agencies.

Levi Johnston, Gay Icon, Huh?

Joy Behar called him one, so it must be so.

If he were such an icon, it would provide additional evidence of the politicization of gay culture, where a man is celebrated merely because he has spoken out against an approved villain of the gay establishment.  And the primary qualification for being such a villain is being a conservative politician with a popular following.

Is Katie Couric Ignorant of American History?

Ever since I reviewed the “news” segments where Katie Couric accorded different treatment to the Democratic and Republican nominees for Vice President last fall, I have been wondering if the reason the CBSNews anchor chose to include the clip of Joe Biden telling us how Franklin Roosevelt went on television right after the market crash (you know the one that, in combination with increased government intervention in the economy precipitated the Great Depression) was because, like the misinformed Democrat, she too was ignorant of American history.

If she had known that back in 1929, presidents didn’t go on television and that, well, FDR wasn’t then president (the market crashed more than three years before that Democrat’s election and longer still before his inauguration), she would have certainly asked a followup. (Okay, okay she may well have done that, but just edited it out–so we have another argument for her to release the raw footage of her interview.) 

Given that her segment was very favorable to the Delaware Democrat, it seems she wouldn’t have included the bit where Biden demonstrates his ignorance of American history.  So, maybe she too is ignorant of American history.  She didn’t know he got his facts wrong.

And if she did not that he was wrong—and didn’t press him on that, well, then we have another piece of evidence of her incredible bias.  Any good reporter would have asked a politician to follow up on such a strange statement.

That is, if she knew it to be strange.

Is Harry Reid Comparing His Constituents to Supporters of Slavery?

Caught this as I was about to turn in, seems that in lashing out against Republicans who oppose the kind of health care reform Harry Reid has been proposed, the Nevada Democrat has been attacking his own constituents.

As he compares “Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago“, he seem to be oblivious to the growing number of Americans opposing the type of health care reforms he and his fellow partisans have been pushing.  If Republicans who oppose health care reform are akin to those clinging to “the institution of slavery”*, wouldn’t then Nevadans who oppose Obamacare also be a akin to those bitter clingers?

And as Michelle informs us, a “majority of Nevadans now disapprove of Democrats’ plans for healthcare reform“:

Fifty-three percent of those polled say they do not support reform legislation, wich 39% in favor. In October, 49% opposed it and 40% favored it.

Seems then that by Harry Reid’s own logic, he was elected by a bunch of people similar to those who once clung bitterly to slavery.


*Does one cling to the institution of slavery like one clings to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them?