Question: Should we keep pouring taxpayer money into treating the symptoms of casual sex (like the current healthcare bill), or should we cut to the root of the problem, addressing behavior modification?
If we continue to promote—and treat symptoms of—casual sex, groups like Planned Parenthood and other "free-sex" advocates will remain self-perpetuating storms.
Their "business," if you will, is promoting casual sex. They work to make risky behavior acceptable and then they get paid to "fix" the problems. Sex is the goal in their agenda, and pushing condoms is their method. Symptom treatment is a vacuous black hole for healthcare funding that never ends.
Conversely, if we cut to the root of the problem by modifying culture and changing sexual behavior, taxpayers and government stand to save money. Character-based abstinence education seeks to achieve this objective.
But there’s another twist: couples are getting married later—26 for women, 28 for men. Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project, describes how the courtship narrative in former generations was set: dating, engagement, marriage and then children. Now the narrative is disrupted by a tenuous time gap, leaving 20-somethings in a "relational wasteland." Some recommend earlier marriage as a solution.
Casual sex and cohabitation have not proven to be effective substitutes for the long-term stability and contentment of lifelong marriage. But they have successfully spread sexual diseases and created unplanned pregnancies.
So, do we keep promoting casual sex, treating and repeating the symptoms? Or, do we cut to the heart of the issue and address behavior, possibly encouraging earlier marriage?