Posts: 272
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2014
It is a parents responsibility to teach their children that their private parts are not to be casually shared, as well as teaching the children the consequences of unprotected sexual contact.
Such instruction need not be explicit in nature and should be geared toward the children's developmental stages.
Religion has nothing to do with my teaching my children about their bodies.
That said, if your children get their sex ed from the internet, then you have failed as a parent.
The same goes for parents who send their children to school without that child knowing how to read, write, and do basic math.
"Life is labor, and all that is good in life comes from that labor..."
"Life is labor, and all that is good in life comes from that labor..."
Posts: 3,035
Threads: 201
Joined: Aug 2006
It is also the parent's responsibility to send their kids to school with full stomachs after a good night's sleep and with a pencil and paper at a minimum, but I can tell you that there are many who do not.
Pretending that parents in our community all do what they "should" be doing means that a sizable portion of our future adults will grow up ignorant of basic health information, which leads to increased spread of all sorts of communicable diseases and unplanned pregnancies. Pretending that youth between the ages of 12 and 18 don't participate in a wide range of sexual activities because they "shouldn't" be doing that is also a good recipe for disaster for a lot of young people.
Parents who want to teach their children at home about this stuff can ALWAYS opt out of any sex ed curriculum, but those parents shouldn't be vetoing it for the rest of the students.
Carol
Carol
Every time you feel yourself getting pulled into other people's nonsense, repeat these words: Not my circus, not my monkeys.
Polish Proverb
Posts: 134
Threads: 2
Joined: Apr 2013
Why he wants it ended is made very clear in the article, he's homophobic.
"Once he obtained a copy and reviewed it with his staff attorney and others, McDermott felt the curriculum fails to inform children of the exponentially increased risks of male on male anal sex."
That is what its all about. He fails to realize they are teaching what REALLY HAPPENS in the world and not in his little head. Don't like it, do what many politicians do, send your kids to an expensive PRIVATE school, after all you are stealing all that money you make from the public, you can afford it.
For those that say the anus is not genitalia, in my opinion I agree, but it IS BEING USED AS ONE, so YES, it DOES have to be considered one. If you think otherwise you are doing your children a disservice by burying your head in the sand with your fingers in your ears yelling I can't hear you.. and we all know how well that works. What this course is teaching the kids is REALITY, and not "reality TV" which is not reality at all.
You want your kids to be "protected" and learn only lies, keep them at home for life, they will love you for it, trust me, right up until they reach 18, leave and tell you they are gay.
Posts: 998
Threads: 30
Joined: Feb 2012
Delta9r:
I wish all parents were as concerned with making sure their children were educated as you are. Sadly, as csgray says, not all (and in some places very few) parents take this responsibility as seriously as you do. Given that, what do you think the education system should do - ignore the problem or try to address it? Honestly, I keep cases of microwavable soup, granola bars and fruit cups in my room for the students who come to school without a lunch, and this is in a mostly fairly affluent neighborhood. Imagine the kids coming to school from under a tarp in Fern Forest. It's probably a miracle they make it at all.
Me ka ha`aha`a,
Mike
Posts: 193
Threads: 22
Joined: Mar 2013
If they were simply teaching kids about their parts and how pregnancy and std's are prevented I have very little problem with it. When they get involved in opening children's eyes to things they would otherwise not know and their parents would object to we do have one. I, for one would object to anal sex and homosexuality as "normal" or "acceptable" being taught to my kids. That is indoctrination and propaganda and I would not stand for it.
I have the right to teach my own children moral values and nobody else has the right to override me based on their own personal viewpoint. Once my kids are of age, they then will have to make their own decision, and until then it it my right as well as my duty before God to teach them moral decency.
This is a two way street of respect for one another here, I won't be covertly attempting to force my opinions on your children, please don't do it to mine. Once again, simple consideration for one another is all it is.
You may try to label me a homophobe, but you would be wrong. I am in no way fearful of homosexuals or homosexuality. I would treat a homosexual with the same respect as any other person. I do believe that it is a sin, always has been, and will continue to be for many thousands of years, but so will a man and woman living together when they are not married. In God's eyes, they are both just as wrong. All of us are sinners, so who is better than who?
Point is, I have the right to teach my kids the moral part of sex ed, not some stranger whose morals I know little about. That is what most opponents of sex ed have a problem with, that and that most sex ed programs don't even mention the fact that abstinence is 100% effective against all sexual problems, and possible for many if it is actually promoted as an alternative.
comin' your way soon!
comin' your way soon!
Posts: 76
Threads: 4
Joined: Sep 2013
quote:
Originally posted by sputnut
that most sex ed programs don't even mention the fact that abstinence is 100% effective against all sexual problems, and possible for many if it is actually promoted as an alternative.
I think the part of the problem here is that, yes, absolutely: abstinence is 100% effective. However, is it REALISTIC? No. I have not encountered a sex ed. program that avoids teaching abstinence...where are you getting that from?
As a once-Christian who encountered a lot of ignorant teachings and false data over the years, I became pretty disillusioned with their take on sex ed. Case in point:
The private Christian high school in my county that teaches abstinence only has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the local area (of over 10 high schools).
The unmarried youth group leaders I had in high school got pregnant together. They also taught us abstinence only.
Several Christian girls I knew in college used anal sex and oral sex as a way to "maintain their virginity" before marriage. Scratching my head at that one.
Information is power. Kids need it. Maybe this program has some troubling points, but have any of us seen the full curriculum or is this just more moral speculation?
Posts: 299
Threads: 13
Joined: Jan 2008
Abstinence based programs of sex ed have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy. Kids who sign pledges of abstinence are much more likely to have premarital sex that their non-pledging peers.
Hawaii has some of the highest rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea in the United States and the problem is not going to be overcome by prayer.
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
One thing that Mr. McDermott and others need to understand is that there is no sexual act that homosexuals engage in that heterosexuals don't engage in as well to some degree. For example, many straight teens today consider anal sex a "safe sex" practice because it can't lead to pregnancy. Unfortunately, it can lead to all sorts of other issues...
Describing sex acts as either heterosexual or homosexual only muddies the waters. Parents and the schools need to fully educate our children about the risks related to all sexual activity without overlaying a value judgement about the participants. Wouldn't it be simple enough to say "different people have different opinions about what constitutes an acceptable or moral sexual relationship, and which sexual activities are moral or immoral. We're not here to talk about that - that's a discussion you need to have with your parents. We here here to inform you about the biological implications of a wide range of sexual activities so that if you decide to engage in sex you'll understand the risks you're taking and hopefully learn how to prevent bad things from happening to you and/or your partner."
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Maybe there could be two seperate classes hetero sex ed, and homo sex ed. Kind of like taking french or chinese.
If sex ed is as important as some make it to be you think there would be emphasis / support to get multiple / different types of courses started. Kind of like how there is different types of languages offered, or different types of sports offered.
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
By the way, using Rep. McDermott's definition of sex and genitals, President Clinton really didn't "have sexual relations with that woman" because they never had intercourse.
And Jim. separate classes are not the best idea, IMO. First of all, kids of that age may not know yet which camp they fall into. Second, the same information needs to be covered in both classes, because as I noted, couples of every persuasion engage in what Rep. McDermott would describe as "homosexual activities". And third, "separate but equal" is never really equal, especially when it is primarily considered because some don't think both camps are equal to begin with.
|
