I read that a little differently, Nico

[elfs]

Over on thinkprogress.org, Nico has an interesting article in which he illustrates the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines for the submission of grants, two of which state (a) that "abstinence is voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual practices until marriage", and (b) "the term 'marriage' must be defined as 'only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife'".

Nico says that he believes this means that, according to the Bush administration, gays should never engage in sex. However, I read it that if one never intends to get married then one cannot be abstinent, since there is no period in one's life that can accurately described as "before marriage." The Bush Administration is teaching gay kids to not bother holding back at all since, after all, what they are is already forbidden.

Gods, I don't know if I can stand two more years of this crap.

Comments

[whipartist.livejournal.com]

Sometime after I moved to the west coast, I went back to my hometown (St. Louis) for a visit. I was driving around, running errands, and listening to the local talk radio station.

They had a couple of hours of call-ins on sex education. The topics of discussion were, "Should schools teach absinence?" or, "Should parents teach absinence?"

For over an hour, not one person questioned the premise of abstinence. I finally lost it, and picked up the phone. "Why is nobody questioning whether abstinence should be taught? I want my children to learn to make rational, intelligent choices about sexual activity, rather than pounding 'just say no' into their heads."

I caused a stir.