There is currently no decent substitution for comprehensive sex ed. Studies have shown that abstinence only education actually increases the risk of STDs in youth because when they eventually decide to have sex, which inevitably happens more often than not, they do not have the right knowledge to do so safely.
This summer I worked for an organization that offers "support" to young pregnant women. HOWEVER this was also a religious organization. I no longer work there and I can say that nearly all pregnant teens that came to see me came from the Catholic schools, who do not have any kind of comprehensive sex ed program.
I also would like to back the idea that not only heterosexuality should be taught in schools; but all kinds.
#2 - would be preferable to me. After all, I am a Nurse and I feel it is important that young minds receive the facts, so they can be aware of the potential consequences of their choices.
It makes it less likely that a person will have an unwanted pregnancy, and decreases the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.
However, some people would argue that a comprehensive Sex Ed class would include religion based morals.
I don't believe sex should wait until marriage . . . but I do think it should wait until maturity. Maturity can be different ages for different people. I think that 16 years old is too young for sex. That's how old I was when I started having sex. Fortunately, it was a beautiful experience without any down sides (no pregnancy or STD) but I was just lucky. The point is that we can't rely on luck. I don't know any 16-year-olds who are really mature enough for sex.
So I would have to say BOTH 1 and 2 would work better than either one alone.
Abstinence only doesn't work... and nothing is a recipe for disaster. Children who know nothing will become confused and terrified when their bodies start changing.
A little girl who has her menarche [first menstruation] and doesn't know about menstruation will probably think that either something is wrong with her... or she is dying. Imagine the terror!
And what about a boy who experiences nighttime ejaculation? Would that not frighten a child who knows nothing about it?
Not telling a child about their bodies is immoral and cruel. It puts the child at high risk for a later psychologically malignant sexuality. [Which... btw... is not a railing on the GLBTQ community! It is refering to individuals who 1. learn to hate their bodies and sexual functioning 2. Learn that sexuality is a sin 3. Believe themselves to be broken or sick]
If they can't teach comprehensive sexual education, then they should just leave the subject alone entirely. Ideally, it would be parents who would teach their kids - but this is not an ideal world. I don't understand what the fuss is about it anyway. Why wouldn't you want your kids to know this? I don't want my kids to be ignorant of their own bodies and how they work. And I want my kids to have a shot at life - instead of getting a sexually transmitted disease that cuts their life short or have kids too early and never get a chance to be a young adult who doesn't have serious responsibilities. This is why I have already taught my sons what they need to know.
Should be as comprehensive as ethically possible. It would cut down on teenage pregnancies and intimacy problems later in life. As soon as you start with sex education based on religious principles, you are asking for badly adapted adults.