Originally Posted By jonvn I understand the program perfectly fine. It's ridiculous. Everyone involved is saying it is ridiculous, and no matter how you alter the wording, the government is spending money to tell adults to abstain from sex. "You need to show that the poster you want to put online is effective" Of course it wouldn't be effective. The entire abstinence program even among teenagers is not effective, and you expect somehow it's going to work with an adult? Please.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I have been reading the post in this thread and as weird as this is going to sound, I'm going to have to agree with jonvn. I'm going to have to defalt to Freedom here. Personally I think the Federal Government needs to stay out of the bedroom. Furthermore, these new guide lines apply to adults NOT just teenagers. As the article points out the Federal Government is stating that millions of dollars ( which I have a problem with right there ) are going to be made available for abstience only programs. If there is not some kind of religious agenda at work here then I must be missing something. I think states can better decide where Health and Human Service money is best spend, not the Federal Government. What kind of message is the Federal Government sending when they are stating that anyone under age 30 abstain from sex? We are talking about adults here not teenagers. Keep the Government out of the bedroom please. This reminds me of the puritain laws in New England. Did you know that its illegal to mix tomatos and clams in the states of MA, NH, CT and Maine? I think that if people want to mix clams and tomatoes in the privacy of their own kitchen they should be able to.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think that if people want to mix clams and tomatoes in the privacy of their own kitchen they should be able to.<< I'm going to say that Clamato is just wrong no matter what.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'm going to say that Clamato is just wrong no matter what.>> Have you ever had it? I have. Just drinking it makes you feel kind of pervy. It's wonderful. ;-)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer These aren't guidelines - this is grant money available for educational programs. The government is saying that you can also apply for this grant money if your educational program is targeted at adults, not just kids. >>I think states can better decide where Health and Human Service money is best spend<< Which is why it is a grant program, so the states can choose to apply for that money and they can decide how to spend it under that program. If they don't want to promote abstinence, they don't have to apply for the money or offer those programs.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<I'm going to say that Clamato is just wrong no matter what.>> Which is probably illegal to sell in those states. I know you will never find Manhattan style clam chowder on the menu in any of those states.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom The point being the Federal Government needs to stay out of the kitchen and bedroom.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Just drinking it makes you feel kind of pervy. It's wonderful.<< RoadTrip, you say the same thing about tap water.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >RoadTrip, you say the same thing about tap water.< That doesn't make him feel pervy - it makes him want to "tap" things.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Which is why it is a grant program, so the states can choose to apply for that money and they can decide how to spend it under that program.> Why do we send money to the federal government just so they can grant it back to the states? Why not just let the states collect the money in the first place, and decide how best to spend it?
Originally Posted By jonvn I've never had Clamato. I've seen it in the stores, but it's just too scary for me to try. What if I liked it? Then I'd be buying it, and people would look at me funny. Even more so than usual.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Why do we send money to the federal government just so they can grant it back to the states? Why not just let the states collect the money in the first place, and decide how best to spend it?<< So Americans in wealthier states can help Americans in poorer states.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So Americans in wealthier states can help Americans in poorer states.> If only it really worked like that.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>If only it really worked like that.<< It generally does. Taxpayers in rural, poor areas are more likely to see more tax dollars come back to them than they paid out, while those in wealthy areas are more likely to see less. But that's a different topic than abstinence.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There are farmes out in the plains who are being paid pretty well to NOT plant things. And what are they doing with their spare time? Having premarital sex of course.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think the fact that some people see no problem with the government trying to spend money to get grown adults to not have sex is a good litmus test. If you don't seem to think there is something wrong with this, that it is not a waste of money, then you are very far out from the mainstream. I couldn't imagine anyone thinking this to be anything other than a waste of public funds.
