-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Utah's Proposed Sex Ed Law
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Why do you get to ask for sources and I do not?
McBell
Unbound
Who said you do not get to ask?
McBell
Unbound
Whats with all the pigeon tactics?
Mestemia, I believe I can advise my children to be responsible for their sexual actions.
My son is married and has two children of his own and one foster child.
My daughter is in her second year of college and has no children.
Saying my children need to be taught about sex at school is an insult to my parenting.
My son is married and has two children of his own and one foster child.
My daughter is in her second year of college and has no children.
Saying my children need to be taught about sex at school is an insult to my parenting.
McBell
Unbound
One wonders why are you taking this thread so personally.
Fact is that there are loads of parents whose idea of sex ed is "Don't have sex before you are married or you will burn in hell".
Now you might be fine and dandy with that, but there are some people who would like the children in the US to actually be educated in school.
When I ask, you get defensive asking me why I would need a source, but refuse to answer if you thought the majority of teachers where conservative. Pot meet kettle.
Here is one that is spot on topic:
Brand new ‘guidelines’ pushing radical, explicit sex ed agenda on schools nationwide | LifeSiteNews.com
Brand new ‘guidelines’ pushing radical, explicit sex ed agenda on schools nationwide | LifeSiteNews.com
McBell
Unbound
- I do not give a rats *** what their political beliefs or religious beliefs are.
- I fail to understand why being a conservative or liberal is such a big freaking deal to people.
- Excuse me that I was most surprised that you needed a source to show that abstinence only is an epic fail.
- I am already bored with your pigeon tactics.
I'm not taking it personally, I just have a different opinion. Is that OK with you?
Thats not my opinion, but if it was, that is my right. If Ignorant parents can't raise their children properly, then they can bring them to school after hours or on Saturday and have their liberal sex ed class.
Do you not see the hypocrisy to keep religion out of school and then turn around and teach a doctrine that goes against a families beliefs?
Children should not be forced to sit and listen to people who preach things against their religion.
Children are treated as pawns when they are indoctrinated in liberal idealism that everyone is going to have sex at an early age as if it is a given.
For your information teen pregnancies are down and not an epidemic right now.
Sex education should be optional not mandatory.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
When parents can't raise their children properly, don't you think the rest of society should intervene, not only for the child's sake but for society's own sake, since they're impacted by it? You do want to prevent or atleast reduce the amount of single mothers on welfare, right?
Because the two aren't even remotely comparable. There is a huge difference between useless superstitions and relevant, important, useful information, for one.
What exactly is being "preached" that's "against" anything? If premarital sex is against a kid's beliefs, then he'll abstain, but how is knowing how to use a condom going to hurt him? All it is is imparting knowledge. What the kid chooses to do with that knowledge, that's where the parents and beliefs come into place.
Even if they aren't, it's still precautionary knowledge, which is preferable to being ignorant. If it prevents one child from having a child, then its worth it. That's like saying we shouldn't teach children to stop, drop and roll if they have no intentions of catching on fire.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Don't know about the specifics sunstone mentions, but here are some interesting findings.
"Evidence does not support the use of abstinence only sex education.[1] It has been found to be ineffective in decreasing HIV risk in the developed world,[2] and does not decrease rates of unplanned pregnancy.[1]
source: Wikipedia.
[1]From NCBI: The National Center for Biotechnology Information
Abstinence and abstinence-only education.
Ott MA, Santelli JS.
Section of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. [email protected]
source: Wikipedia.
[1]From NCBI: The National Center for Biotechnology Information
Abstinence and abstinence-only education.
Ott MA, Santelli JS.
Section of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review recent literature on medical accuracy, program effectiveness, and ethical concerns related to abstinence-only policies for adolescent sexuality education.
RECENT FINDINGS: The federal government invests over 175 million dollars annually in 'abstinence-only-until-marriage' programs. These programs are required to withhold information on contraception and condom use, except for information on failure rates. Abstinence-only curricula have been found to contain scientifically inaccurate information, distorting data on topics such as condom efficacy, and promote gender stereotypes. An independent evaluation of the federal program, several systematic reviews, and cohort data from population-based surveys find little evidence of efficacy and evidence of possible harm. In contrast, comprehensive sexuality education programs have been found to help teens delay initiation of intercourse and reduce sexual risk behaviors. Abstinence-only policies violate the human rights of adolescents because they withhold potentially life-saving information on HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
SUMMARY: Federal support of abstinence-only as an approach to adolescent sexuality education is of much concern due to medical inaccuracies, lack of effectiveness, and the withholding and distorting of health information.
source
[2]Abstinence-only programs for HIV infection prevention in high-income countries.PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review recent literature on medical accuracy, program effectiveness, and ethical concerns related to abstinence-only policies for adolescent sexuality education.
RECENT FINDINGS: The federal government invests over 175 million dollars annually in 'abstinence-only-until-marriage' programs. These programs are required to withhold information on contraception and condom use, except for information on failure rates. Abstinence-only curricula have been found to contain scientifically inaccurate information, distorting data on topics such as condom efficacy, and promote gender stereotypes. An independent evaluation of the federal program, several systematic reviews, and cohort data from population-based surveys find little evidence of efficacy and evidence of possible harm. In contrast, comprehensive sexuality education programs have been found to help teens delay initiation of intercourse and reduce sexual risk behaviors. Abstinence-only policies violate the human rights of adolescents because they withhold potentially life-saving information on HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
SUMMARY: Federal support of abstinence-only as an approach to adolescent sexuality education is of much concern due to medical inaccuracies, lack of effectiveness, and the withholding and distorting of health information.
source
MAIN RESULTS: Studies involved 15,940 United States youth; participants were ethnically diverse. Seven programs were school-based, two were community-based, and one was delivered in family homes. Median final follow-up occurred 17 months after baseline. Results showed no indications that abstinence-only programs can reduce HIV risk as indicated by self-reported biological and behavioral outcomes. Compared to various controls, the evaluated programs consistently did not affect incidence of unprotected vaginal sex, frequency of vaginal sex, number of partners, sexual initiation, or condom use. One study found a significantly protective effect for incidence of recent vaginal sex (n=839), but this was limited to short-term follow-up, countered by measurement error, and offset by six studies with non-significant results (n=2615). One study found significantly harmful effects for STI incidence (n=2711), pregnancy incidence (n=1548), and frequency of vaginal sex (n=338); these effects were also offset by studies with non-significant findings. Methodological strengths included large samples, efforts to improve self-report, and analyses controlling for baseline values. Weaknesses included underutilization of relevant outcomes, underreporting of key data, self-report bias, and analyses neglecting attrition and clustered randomization.
source
If you have one dirty plate do you wash every dish in the house? If I have done my duty as a parent and do not want the school system assuming I have not properly educated my children, I should have the right to prevent my children from wasting their time teaching them something they already know. Some students even skip a grade or two because they have surpassed their class mates.
Saying I have not properly raised my children and have to do that for me is an insult.
Why do you assume that this has not been taught at home?
Thats B.S. I just love the way you assume if my child did have a baby that it would be on welfare. I further believe that liberals falsely assume that all religious people would not have their kids on birth control or at least educate them about it.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Fine then let your kids take a test to see if they know enough to be excused from the class. If not, tough titties.
Should schools, or anyone else also assume you've taught your kids appropriate age/grade math? Appropriate age/grade English? Appropriate age/grade science? Appropriate age/grade physical education? Your presumption that schools and others should know what you've done with your children is, to put it kindly, highly egotistical. And your word that you have wouldn't cut it with any decent school board.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
In California Parents are given a note that must be signed to have your kid removed from sex ed.
I don't know if thats covered in the curriculum.
You mean the parts where they talk about same sex relationships?
How many unwanted pregnancies are caused by that lack of education?
Skwim
Veteran Member
On the face of it this appears to be an unwise policy.Wannabe Yogi said:
If that's part of the curriculum, then yes.Reverend Rick said:
Don't know about that number, but I do know that ignorance (Abstinence-Only sex education) doesn't help.
"Over the past 25 years, Congress has spent over $1.5 billion on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, yet no study in a professional peer-reviewed journal has found these programs to be broadly effective. Scientific evidence simply does not support an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach.
Federal Evaluation Finds Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Ineffective
In April 2007, a federally funded evaluation of Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage programs was released. The study, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are ineffective.
A July 2007 “meta-study” published in the British Medical Journal reviewed the most recently available data examining the results of 13 abstinence-only trials including almost 16,000 students.2
Virginity pledges—promises that young people make to remain abstinent until marriage—are becoming increasingly popular in schools and communities across the country. While not a program in and of themselves, virginity pledges are so common in abstinence-only-until-marriage interventions that having taken such a pledge is often an indication that a young person has been involved in an abtinence-only-until-marriage program.
Federal Evaluation Finds Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Ineffective
In April 2007, a federally funded evaluation of Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage programs was released. The study, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are ineffective.
Mathematica’s evaluation found no evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs increased rates of sexual abstinence—the entire supposed purpose of the programs.
Students in the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs had a similar age of first sex and similar numbers of sexual partners as their peers who were not in the programs.
The average age of sexual debut was the same for the abstinence-only-until-marriage participants and control groups (14 years, 9 months).
Abstinence-Only Programs Do Not Affect Rates of HIV Infection or Sexual BehaviorStudents in the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs had a similar age of first sex and similar numbers of sexual partners as their peers who were not in the programs.
The average age of sexual debut was the same for the abstinence-only-until-marriage participants and control groups (14 years, 9 months).
A July 2007 “meta-study” published in the British Medical Journal reviewed the most recently available data examining the results of 13 abstinence-only trials including almost 16,000 students.2
Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs were ineffective in changing any of the behaviors that were examined including the rate of vaginal sex, number of sexual partners, and condom use.
The rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among participants in abstinenceonly-until-marriage programs were unaffected.
As a result of this meta-study, the researchers concluded that recent declines in the U.S. rate of teen
pregnancy
Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Negatively Impact Young People’s Sexual HealthThe rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among participants in abstinenceonly-until-marriage programs were unaffected.
As a result of this meta-study, the researchers concluded that recent declines in the U.S. rate of teen
pregnancy
Virginity pledges—promises that young people make to remain abstinent until marriage—are becoming increasingly popular in schools and communities across the country. While not a program in and of themselves, virginity pledges are so common in abstinence-only-until-marriage interventions that having taken such a pledge is often an indication that a young person has been involved in an abtinence-only-until-marriage program.
Research on virginity pledges found that for a select group of young people, pledges did delay the onset of sexual intercourse for an average of 18 months (a goal still far short of the average age of marriage).3 However, the same study also found that young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged.4 In other words, pledges can cause harm by undermining contraceptive use when the young people who take them become sexually active.
The researchers also found that pledgers have the same rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) as their peers who had not pledged. Not only were pledgers less likely to use condoms to prevent STDs, they were less likely to seek medical testing and treatment, thereby increasing the possibility of transmission.5
Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers were more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. In fact, among virgins, male and female pledgers were six times more likely to have had oral sex than nonpledgers, and male pledgers were four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged.
According to the researchers, in communities where there are a higher proportion of pledgers, overall STD rates were significantly higher than in other settings. Specifically, in communities where more than 20% of young adults had taken virginity pledges, STD rates were 8.9% compared to 5.5% in communities with few pledgers.
“Published by SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, 90 John Street, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038, www.siecus.org.”
source (pdf)The researchers also found that pledgers have the same rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) as their peers who had not pledged. Not only were pledgers less likely to use condoms to prevent STDs, they were less likely to seek medical testing and treatment, thereby increasing the possibility of transmission.5
Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers were more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. In fact, among virgins, male and female pledgers were six times more likely to have had oral sex than nonpledgers, and male pledgers were four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged.
According to the researchers, in communities where there are a higher proportion of pledgers, overall STD rates were significantly higher than in other settings. Specifically, in communities where more than 20% of young adults had taken virginity pledges, STD rates were 8.9% compared to 5.5% in communities with few pledgers.
“Published by SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, 90 John Street, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038, www.siecus.org.”
Last edited:
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
I don't object to sex-ed in school at all. I think it could be better, but, I don't think it should be the government's responsibility in any way, shape or form, to educate the youth in America on such topics.
I don't object to messaging that encourages safe sex practices for BGLTQs. But, I don't think that in-depth conversation about homosexuality is necessary, unless you're providing statistics to support the need for safer sex practices.
Sex-ed in my opinion, should be factual and neutral in its presentation.
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Should it be the government's responsibility to teach math to the youth in America? If yes, then why?
What do you mean by 'in-depth conversation about homosexuality'?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
I don't see why this topic is somehow different from topics like English, math, science, geography or history. And if you think it is, then please explain why.
In Norway the 'sex-ed' classes are included as a natural part of the science curriculum, in which we explain how our bodies work, what happens during puberty and about how procreation takes place. They are also taught that some boys fall in love with boys and some girls fall in love with girls, and that there is nothing particularly wrong with that. That's fifth grade (kids aged 10-11), and in the eight grade (kids aged 13-14) they learn about contraceptives and STDs.
It's all very clinical and technical, and while I'm sure there are parents there who reel about the school teaching their kids about SEX!, they all need to chill out a bit. We're not exactly showing off porn movies and teaching masturbation techniques. We're just telling them the facts.
Not sure what you consider 'in-depth', but in Norway it's basically two paragraphs out of a 300 page textbook, and we basically tell them, as mentioned above, that some people are attracted to the same sex as they themselves are, and that that's fine. I guess people in Norway are less inclined to make a big fuss about this issue than certain other places in the world, but for most of society it's really a non-issue. Gays can marry, serve in the military, hold political office, and just about any other thing that heterosexuals can.
And it is.