And premarital is extramarital. From Latin extra (“outside, except, beyond”) (adverb and preposition), from exter (“being on the outside”). So extramarital means outside of marriage. pre marital is outside of marriage as well but is a subset of extramarital.

@Draug...

"Only abstinence is 100% guaranteed."

Not if you're a believing Christian.

LOL! +1 Bob! That was brilliant!

@ora - As a citizen of the US, I think it belongs at the local level and that the state/fed minimums should be very low in that all they require is the biology class level teaching of reproduction. Local school boards are elected by the citizens and represent the community at large's views. They should have the ultimate say in what their schools teach.

"The House Oversight Committee" There's an entire committee for making oversights? God this explains so much!

@ Whoever said that sex education was based on Kinsey's work. Ummm I think not? I mean, I guess it is in the sense that Kinsey was the first person who decided to take a completely not judgmental, empirical look at human sexual behaviour. But none of his conclusions made it into the sex education classroom, even in Canada. If I had been told in high school that there was a study that found some rather high percentage of men had had sexual experiences with other men, or same-sex fantasies, or that sexuality existed on a spectrum, I'd definitely have remembered.

@ Mujus - You are a virulent homophobe. You're going to deny it and claim you're just a christian, or that I'm just accusing you of that because I don't have a counter argument but really "If a man has 3 boyfriends, and 2 leave him, how many more does he need to feel better?" What the hell is that? Fuck off.

@ Draug - The first amendment means not establishing a religion and leaving people free to pursue whatever religion they want. Exposing people to information completely unrelated to religion (sexuality is not part of religion, but religion involves itself in sexuality. If religion started to involve itself in retirement and pensions would Social Security be a violation of the first amendment?) is not a violation of the first amendment. No one is forcing anyone to have sex. No one is saying "Jesus totally would have used a condom!" It's just giving kids, all kids the information they need to stay safe. If their religion requires them not to use that information, then that's up to them individually. It's not up to the state to uphold the conservative sexual mores of some religious people. THAT would be a violation of the first amendment.

The distinctiin i was making was between pre (before) marrying, and extra marital affairs, ie sex outside of an existing marriage - i hope this is a clear distinction.

I would never use extra-marital to include pre-marital; i'm using english not latin, and language evolves. Can you cite please a use of extra-marital sex which is refer to a pair of unmarried people?

"If a man has 3 boyfriends, and 2 leave him, how many more does he need to feel better?" What the hell is that?

Eh, mathematics??

It's also judgmental and stereotyped as all hell.

The implication that homosexuality and promiscuity are necessarily linked, that is. It's just an extremely derogatory comment, and the general tone of disgust inherent in Mujus' comment is pretty damn offensive.

@ora - A quick google of extramarital sex...

Definition for extramarital sex:




Web definitions:




sexual intercourse between individuals who are not married to one another.

Nothing there about one or the other being married to someone else.

From thefreedictionary.com:

Noun 1. extramarital sex - sexual intercourse between individuals who are not married to one another

Another one where there is no requirement one of the partners be married to someone else. I can dig up more if you like. But these are English dictionaries. the fact yuou choose to ignore the etymology and the accepted definition and insert your own is not my problem. An extramarital *affair* involves a realtionship outside an established marriage. But extramarityal sex is sex between two people not married to each other, regardless if they are married to someone else or not.

Oh and any two people who hookup are having extramarital sex (if not married ot each other), but only if they plan to get married are the having premarital sex. If they are just fucking for fun, it ain't premarital because there are no marriage plans.

@Mafia - there are *two* parts to the first amendments statement on religion. you conveniently chose to ignore the second part, "abridging the free practice thereof." When the school starts to encourage kids to have sex by showing them all the ways they can have safe sex (oral, anal, condoms, the pill) and even starts giving out condoms, then the state is abrdiging the free exercise of religions that were around and have had sexual practices and morals as part of them for 30 times longer than the US has existed.

It's a little off-topic, but....

"And sex is a normal human function, abstinance is not. Abstinance is a lifestyle choice and can be hard"

is a crazy statement, ora. A "normal human function" is something like digestion or heartbeat, which goes on whether whether we want it to or not, and we have no control over it.

Sex doesn't happen by itself. It may be a normal and strong human _drive_, but every decision to have or not have sex is a choice, and neither one is more normal or abnormal. (If you didn't have sex in the last three hours, does that represent a departure from normal human function? The last 2 days?)

You might as well say that hitting somebody in the head when you're angry is a normal human function, but peace is a lifestyle choice and can be hard.

@smeck, you're right, i might say that. You might say that eating meat is a normal human function and that being a vegetarian is a lifestyle choice.

I would agree and point out that it is hard for me to choose. But i believe it is the moral thing for me to choose.

I don't see any difference, except that we base our morals on different ideas.

@draug, i thought to say an extra-maritial affair, but that does not necessarily require sex. It seems less specific. However ypur distracting pedantry is a usefuly educational tool for me.

You have a very odd notion of "human function."

@draugnar, I respectfully disagree with you about schools handing condoms out being a violation of the first amendment, for the simple reason that they are not FORCING anyone to use them. Likewise with the information.

@draug, knowing how to practice safe sex does not infringe on religion. The student can still practice their personal religious views. Your argument is akin to saying telling Jews how to cook a pork chop infringes on their beliefs.

The materials used to teach safe sex are pretty graphic and that is a large part of what offends the religious zealots.

Their is a difference between nudity and vulgarity.

there*

So now you have the audacity to tell a religious person that there belief that nudity is wrong is, itself, wrong? Are you saying they can't freely practice the belief that nudity is between husband and wife as adults? You communist! Youa re violating their first amendment right. Read Genesis and sicover than

Damn it... discover that Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nudity and that is what tipped their hand of their sin to God. It is part of both Judaism and Christianity.

Ora, math, yes... and PE, and music, and art, and science, and history, and political science, and reading... every grade, every topic, children are *by law* required to be exposed to information about homosexuality. Homosexuality has become the "super"-minority in that it's privileged over every other group. And Draugnar, yes, the right to opt-out has to be there. When my first daughter was in middle school, parents with questions had to make an appointment with the principal. After he briefly outlined the program to me, he assured me sneeringly that it's not like some college professor demonstrating them how to put a condom on a cucumber... and then asked me what I do. Yup, college professor. But it was a reasonable program, with all materials available for parents to look over, and the option to opt out, which we did not exercise.

Are you being serious or facetious? If serious, let's took a look at one of the most vulgar places in the world then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sistine_Chapel_ceiling_photo_2.jpg.

Let's see... Art created by what most protestant fundamentalists believe to be a corrupt and ungodly regime that bought it's way to power. Seriously, the Catholic church was as corrupt as any despot at that time. And yet there are still no penises or vaginas in it. Unlike the sex ed books either graphic drawings depicting the act of fornication.

I am pretty sure that most places have the opportunity to opt out. I have not heard of any that do not. That being said, I have the audacity to say it is dumb to opt out. Most parents are grossly unprepared to effectively educate their children. Study after study has shown that sex education reduces VD and pregnancies. Abstinence is not a viable solution for these issues, because kids are going to have sex. God did a funny thing, he made us want sex and develop sexually before society wants us to have sex. That being said, some people might actually be prepared to teach their children, and if they are, sure they could opt out.

I am sure if we took some time we could find plenty of full frontal nudes in christian places.

You mean in Catholic places. Please don't confuse that corrupt organization with real Christianity.

Now you are value judging which religions are most important.

My point is that you have the right to remove your kids. Kids need to know this stuff. You and your kid aren't being religiously persecuted. Sorry I got off topic.