It seems to me there has been a lot of research in this area, mostly aimed at rates of incidence pregnancy in children. The majority appears to me to encourage the idea that the earlier and less moralistically the subject is addressed the healthier the childs appreciation of sexuality.
This may well be true, and your article *suggests* that this conclusion might be warranted.
The jump from this paragraph to everything else you said is huge. So is using the Jehovah's Witness resistance to blood transfusions as a general reason to oppose religious parents.
You might be aware that authorities already override JW's convictions on this matter, choosing the child's welfare over the parents' convictions. That hardly is justification for overriding every parent's conviction if it can be called religious.
An attentive parent should have very little problem knowing when to begin a child's sex education, and how far to take it, religious or otherwise. I can't imagine that letting the government choose is a good alternative.
Your assumptions are what lie at the heart of racism. Every religious person endangers their child's life, because some Jehovah's Witness parents withhold transfusion. Generally, very little of what you said about me is remotely accurate, but I'm a theist, so I'm just like every other theist. Children must be rescued from all theists, even if very little of what you believe in general about theists is true about me.
What's worse, is that I am pretty extreme as far as theists go, and you still have very little right about me. Almost nothing of what you said applies to the average Catholic, Episcopalian, or even any of the more liberal Baptists, who, on the sort of moral matters we're discussing, tend to think no differently than the average non-religious person.
By the way, I totally agree with the sentiments expressed in the paragraph above, except for the part about "the earlier." All your study addressed was starting earlier than 13, which seems sort of obvious to me, anyway.