WITH ALL THE PROBLEMS ACCOMPANYING teenage sexual activity, one would think our education establishment would err on the side of discouraging promiscuous sex. In addition to student pregnancy and the escalation in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), a recent Heritage Foundation study reveals that sexually active teenagers are far more prone to depression and likely to commit suicide than those who refrain from sex. Yet sex education is captive to another agenda. It is another tool being used by the social engineers to remold American society through the education system. Today's sex education is radically different from the type offered in public schools a generation ago. Now, students are often exposed to presentations on homosexuality and other so-called alternative lifestyles under the assumption that to exclude such topics would be an imposition of religious or sectarian values-as if including them isn't.
While the ostensible purpose of these courses is to help prevent student pregnancy and STDs, student exposure to "alternative lifestyles" along with the promotion of "safe sex" through condom usage can promote rather than discourage such negative consequences. Indeed, while sex education has been touted as the answer to curb widespread promiscuity among teenagers, many believe it has done the opposite. Teens are more exposed to and more educated about sex than ever before and yet their sexual experimentation has increased rather than subsided. The consequences have been devastating. Studies show that comprehensive sex education not only leads to sexual experimentation, but often conceals the risks of "protected sex" for both STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
Certain groups such as Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) have feverishly lobbied Congress to accept the dogma that "safe sex" training and condom-based sex education are not only best for children, but are supported by the majority of parents. Recent polling data, however, show the opposite: parents don't buy the canard that abstinence education is unrealistic nor that "comprehensive sex education" is the better choice. Dr. Janice Crouse, in describing the new data, says that previous polling data from these lobbying groups were based on "deception and dishonest interpretation."
Most parents become outraged when given concrete examples of materials actually used in these vaunted sex education courses, such as those from the sex education guidelines developed by SIECUS and others. Those guidelines provide that 1) children ages 5-8 be taught that it feels good to touch and rub body parts; 2) those 9-12 be taught that homosexuality is as satisfying as heterosexuality; 3) 15-18-yearold students be taught that using erotic photographs, movies, or literature will enhance sexual fantasies. Dr. Crouse also provided the results of a recent Zogby poll confirming that parents approve or strongly approve of abstinence education (by a 4.6 to 1 margin) and disapprove or strongly disapprove of comprehensive sex education (by a 2.4 to 1 margin). Yet the homosexual lobby continues to pursue its campaign to oppose abstinence education.
Was this article helpful?