>Out-of-the-box messaging required?
OK, shoot:
>Sex is a Spiritual gift for couples to share?
Sex is the ultimate act of intimacy. Start bringing God back into the bedroom, and you've already lost a majority of people in the middle; yes even Christians. Stop that shit. Sex is sex.
>Wait until you’ve found your Spiritual partner to LOVE and grow with (Spiritually)? Someone that you can count on to raise a child with?
Read reason above why doing this spiritual thing isn't going to appeal. You want to persuade and appeal. Not everyone is going to hear this message. Think more realistically.
>Sex with random people is dysfunctional?
Random people? No one is "random". You talking one night stands? "Dating around"? Being open about having more than one partner? I really hate to break this to you, but you're talking about normal human behavior. Yes, putting value on making that act as intimate and reserved for someone special and trustworthy helps, but making accusations like "random" while stating what problems you want to help society to fix is off-putting. Here's a big wake up for some, most people have at least 5 partners over a lifetime. You can check for breakdowns by country, sex, age, etc. There's some mind blowing shit out there. Lots of folks just have no grasp of "normal" anymore. It's either extreme left, or extreme right.
You aren't going to convert everyone to chastity by trying to chastise human behavior. You can strongly encourage practicing safe sex, contraceptives, and push abstinence as a "always works!" alternative. Taking the shame out of sex and speaking real about it is so difficult for a lot of conservatives, but it's essential. The stigma about how to talk about it needs to be adjusted. If you start acting like a stiff, you going to get stiff resistance to your message.
>Stop watching Hollywood and MTV for sex-ed lessons (perversion leads to pain)?
Agreed! Their views are depressingly unhealthy. They also make a great point about how oppressive most conservatives are about it.
>Does the public need:
>Vetting for “teachers” of sex-ed in schools?
100000% agree, yes. Many things should be put to vote in school boards, but I would even say there should be a male AND female teacher present in each lesson.
>NO LGBT+ sex-ed “teachers” in public schools?
Being gay doesn't disqualify you from being an educator. Being a groomer should. There's a difference, and lumping gay/lesbians in groups to be disqualified is bullshit. Some of my best teachers were gay/lesbian.
>MASSIVE penalties for publishers (and politicians…) pushing queer or promiscuous content on children in public schools?
Dept. of Education should have a policy against this anyway.
>Adults that are brave enough to be good examples? Not afraid to be called prude because they don’t chase easy things and prostitutes?
How about a normal and healthy fact-based perspective presented that reflects normal human behavior? Again, putting people into "Prude" or "Promiscuous" is the whole fucking problem. Most folks are going to avg 5 partners in their life. Trying to pretend everyone's going to find the true meaning of Jesus in their marriage bed is just ridiculous as trying to convince them that everyone that has multiple partners is going to end up working for Greg Lansky and eventually on a crack pipe in an alley next to Hunter Biden.
Realistic conversations that are age appropriate are needed. Too much too soon is very damaging. Too little too late leaves too much to possible mistakes that could've been prevented. I think the best way to fix this, ultimately, is to have parents/guardians as much as part of the curriculum as possible. For example, a month before class, the entire curriculum is distributed to parents for review and signature. If something is objected to, then the parents submit their objections and the class can't proceed until an agreement is met.