Utah's Proposed Sex Ed Law

[dust1n]

It's quite telling that the religious see knowledge and understanding as a threat.

And curiousity.

 

[Skwim]

Wrongo Pongo Dawg. Who's children are they? Parents can send their children to
any school of their choosing, the state does not have any rights in this matter.

Tax payers have a right to over see what is taught as well.

And the tax payers, meaning just about all adults, plus all those who don't pay taxes, have a vested interest in the education of all children. We expect that children, regardless of how goofy or not their parents may be, will get a decent education so as to prepare them for adulthood. This is why education in the USA is mandatory. Not all parents can be trusted to do the right thing for their children, so the government is forced to step in and make sure it is done. Now, part of said education includes exposure to math, English, science, physical education, history, etc. because it's been determined that these are essential to becoming skilled, informed, and productive adults. And part of the "etc." education includes health and welfare subjects. We don't want kids growing into adulthood with no idea of how to take care of their mind and body, so it's been decided that these too would be part of the curriculum, which happens to included sex education; sexual issues being a significant part of adulthood. Now, just as some parents are quite capable of teaching their kids high school level math or English, and may even do so, so some parents may be capable of teaching their kids about sex, but in neither case does this fact alone excuse a child from taking these subjects. To do so would involve providing the school with sufficient reason to excuse them. Got sufficient reason why your kids shouldn't learn about sex in school? Fine. Step up to the mike. Don't have any? Then sit down while little Johnny and Mary learn to become better informed adults.

In the North America parents do not have absolute control over their children, as much as you may like to believe so. I, for one, don't want kids growing up with no idea of how women get pregnant and how prevent it. Nor do I want them growing up with some distorted notion of gender identity. And while perhaps an overstatement, I believe there is a grain of truth to the maxim that ignorance breeds contempt. Ignorance is very seldom an asset, whereas knowledge is almost always one.

 

[Reverend Rick]

And the tax payers, meaning just about all adults, plus all those who don't pay taxes, have a vested interest in the education of all children. We expect that children, regardless of how goofy or not their parents may be, will get a decent education so as to prepare them for adulthood. This is why education in the USA is mandatory. Not all parents can be trusted to do the right thing for their children, so the government is forced to step in and make sure it is done. Now, part of said education includes exposure to math, English, science, physical education, history, etc. because it's been determined that these are essential to becoming skilled, informed, and productive adults. And part of the "etc." education includes health and welfare subjects. We don't want kids growing into adulthood with no idea of how to take care of their mind and body, so it's been decided that these too would be part of the curriculum, which happens to included sex education; sexual issues being a significant part of adulthood. Now, just as some parents are quite capable of teaching their kids high school level math or English, and may even do so, so some parents may be capable of teaching their kids about sex, but in neither case does this fact alone excuse a child from taking these subjects. To do so would involve providing the school with sufficient reason to excuse them. Got sufficient reason why your kids shouldn't learn about sex in school? Fine. Step up to the mike. Don't have any? Then sit down while little Johnny and Mary learn to become better informed adults.


In the North America parents do not have absolute control over their children, as much as you may like to believe so. I, for one, don't want kids growing up with no idea of how women get pregnant and how prevent it. Nor do I want them growing up with some distorted notion of gender identity. And while perhaps an overstatement, I believe there is a grain of truth to the maxim that ignorance breeds contempt. Ignorance is very seldom an asset, whereas knowledge is almost always one.

Your post is the biggest bunch of swill I have ever heard of. The school board answers to the taxpayers and parents and a parent has every right to decide if a child attends a school or not.This is not Nazi Germany and I don't have to sit down and let a bunch of liberal teachers indoctrinate my children into their version of right and wrong.Bad parents are just an excuse to futher the liberal agenda which promotes children having sex and teaching that it is OK.Practice safe sex and you will be OK.Get pregnant, just get an abortion.Homosexuality is normal and experimenting is just fine as long as you practice safe sex.

 

[Skwim]

Your post is the biggest bunch of swill I have ever heard of. The school board answers to the taxpayers and parents and a parent has every right to decide if a child attends a school or not.

Only if they provide alternative education, which would be home schooling.

HERE are the circumstances exempting your child from compulsory attendance in Kentucky.

HERE are the Kentucky Home School Requirements & Information

And, if you do choose to home school your little snow flake here are a few Kentucky Home Schooling Requirements.

PL.HS.1.1.4
Students will explain the process of human reproduction and development (e.g., conception, birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood) and its impact on an individual’s well being.

PL-HS-1.1.5
Students will identify and evaluate the risks (e.g., STDs, unwanted pregnancies, HIV/AIDS) of being sexually active, and the strategies (e.g., abstinence, using refusal skills, talking with parents, doctors, counselors) for delaying sexual activity.

PL-HS-1.1.7
Students will describe symptoms, causes, patterns of transmission, prevention and treatments of communicable diseases (hepatitis, tuberculosis, STD/HIV/AIDS) and non-communicable diseases (cancer, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, osteoporosis).

PL-HS-1.1.8
Students will explain risks associated with unhealthy habits and behaviors (e.g., dietary, physical activity, tobacco, alcohol, steroids, other substance abuse, sexual activity, violent/aggressive behavior).

http://www.education.ky.gov/users/OTL/CCA 4 1 FINAL/CCA_41_PLVS_HS.doc

​

This is not Nazi Germany and I don't have to sit down and let a bunch of liberal teachers indoctrinate my children into their version of right and wrong.

No, but you DO have convince the state that you will educate your children to the state's satisfaction. (See just a few of the many requirements I've listed above). Think you're up to it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

isn't it bad to teach little kids about something like sex?

No. Considering the average age of teens having sex is around 15 to 19.
Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health

 

[MoonWater]

Your post is the biggest bunch of swill I have ever heard of. The school board answers to the taxpayers and parents and a parent has every right to decide if a child attends a school or not.This is not Nazi Germany and I don't have to sit down and let a bunch of liberal teachers indoctrinate my children into their version of right and wrong.Bad parents are just an excuse to futher the liberal agenda which promotes children having sex and teaching that it is OK.Practice safe sex and you will be OK.Get pregnant, just get an abortion.Homosexuality is normal and experimenting is just fine as long as you practice safe sex.

the fact of the matter is most parents DON'T teach their children about sex and even if they do they don't go into enough detail about it. As such it is left up to the schools to pick up the slack. This isn't about them being bad parents, it's just about them either not being comfortable with the subject or not having the right information. If all parents had good information and could pass that on to their kids in an unbiased manner so that their children could make educated decisions about sex then I would agree that sex education doesn't need to be taught in schools. However until that day comes it is needed in schools so that children have a better chance of growing up well educated about sex, well educated about the consequences of sex, and able to make well-informed adult decisions about sex. That's all sex education is about. There's no "liberal agenda" trying to encourage promiscuity. Hell I imagine most liberals would be against the idea of promiscuity and be especially against the idea of "children having sex". It's about educating children in order to help reduce the rates of teen pregnancy and the spread of STD's. Hell I'm about as liberal as you get and I still think that abstinence should be apart of all sex education programs and encouraged. Sure I think contraception should be taught too but I feel the emphasis should be placed on "waiting" not necessarily until marriage but at least until you are a full adult and have been with the person for a long time.

 

[McBell]

the fact of the matter is most parents DON'T teach their children about sex and even if they do they don't go into enough detail about it. As such it is left up to the schools to pick up the slack. This isn't about them being bad parents, it's just about them either not being comfortable with the subject or not having the right information. If all parents had good information and could pass that on to their kids in an unbiased manner so that their children could make educated decisions about sex then I would agree that sex education doesn't need to be taught in schools. However until that day comes it is needed in schools so that children have a better chance of growing up well educated about sex, well educated about the consequences of sex, and able to make well-informed adult decisions about sex. That's all sex education is about. There's no "liberal agenda" trying to encourage promiscuity. Hell I imagine most liberals would be against the idea of promiscuity and be especially against the idea of "children having sex". It's about educating children in order to help reduce the rates of teen pregnancy and the spread of STD's. Hell I'm about as liberal as you get and I still think that abstinence should be apart of all sex education programs and encouraged. Sure I think contraception should be taught too but I feel the emphasis should be placed on "waiting" not necessarily until marriage but at least until you are a full adult and have been with the person for a long time.

I strongly suspect that the real meat of his issues is in the teaching about homosexuality.

 

[Skwim]

I strongly suspect that the real meat of his issues is in the teaching about homosexuality.

Very possible.

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean that god doesn't love heterosexuals too, it's just that they need more supervision.

 

[Reverend Rick]

​

No, but you DO have convince the state that you will educate your children to the state's satisfaction. (See just a few of the many requirements I've listed above). Think you're up to it?

Both of my children are adults now. They did not have to endure a state sponsered sex ed class because I would not allow it.

My oldest is married and has two children and one foster child.

My youngest is in her second year of college and on the deans list. She has not became pregnant or contracted any sexual diseases. So yes, I believe we where up to it.

 

[T-Dawg]

Wrongo Pongo Dawg. Who's children are they? Parents can send their children to
any school of their choosing, the state does not have any rights in this matter.

Tax payers have a right to over see what is taught as well.

Who's children are they? That's a rather strange thing to ask, they're obviously wards of the State. The parents just produce the children for the State, they don't own them - that's why the State is (or rather, should be) allowed to decide if a couple shouldn't be able to have a baby (although they shouldn't be able to mandate that they do have a baby, imo). If parents were considered they owners of the children they produce, not only would this lead to many unhappy children, it would also complicate eugenics programs with nonsense like "reproductive rights."

(Also, I'm pretty sure the State DOES decide what school a child goes to. Parents have to get special permission to send their children to schools outside of their "district," from what I understand.)

Even if taxpayers were the ones who set educational standards and curricula, that wouldn't justify the individual meddling with the affairs of the State.

 

[Apex]

Who's children are they? That's a rather strange thing to ask, they're obviously wards of the State. The parents just produce the children for the State, they don't own them - that's why the State is (or rather, should be) allowed to decide if a couple shouldn't be able to have a baby (although they shouldn't be able to mandate that they do have a baby, imo). If parents were considered they owners of the children they produce, not only would this lead to many unhappy children, it would also complicate eugenics programs with nonsense like "reproductive rights."

(Also, I'm pretty sure the State DOES decide what school a child goes to. Parents have to get special permission to send their children to schools outside of their "district," from what I understand.)

Even if taxpayers were the ones who set educational standards and curricula, that wouldn't justify the individual meddling with the affairs of the State.

 

[T-Dawg]

Hypocrisy, I dare say.



What's stupid about a sensible eugenics program and acknowledging the superiority of the State over the individual?

 

[Apex]

Hypocrisy, I dare say.



What's stupid about a sensible eugenics program and acknowledging the superiority of the State over the individual?

Dude, you seriously scare me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Both of my children are adults now. They did not have to endure a state sponsered sex ed class because I would not allow it.

My oldest is married and has two children and one foster child.

My youngest is in her second year of college and on the deans list. She has not became pregnant or contracted any sexual diseases. So yes, I believe we where up to it.

You may be one of many acceptations to the statistics. The fact of the matter is not enough youth know and understand sex so they should be educated when young. They should at least be taught the preliminaries of biological reproduction and STDs.

I was given the opportunity to learn sex ed in grade school. Back then the focus was not on STDs but our society is very different than when you and I attended school. The youth today are more socially connected than our generation ever were.

If we don't teach them early on and teach them how to teach their children then they will be uninformed and then their generation will repeat the cycle of children having children.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What's stupid about a sensible eugenics program and acknowledging the superiority of the State over the individual?

I think you're just funnin' with us. You don't seriously want government all up in your business controlling whether or not you're fit to have children...(?)....Sounds like a theme best left in the movies.....:areyoucra

 

[Revoltingest]

I not only favor sex ed, but I want other topics taught:
- How to start & run a business
- Contract law
- Home & appliance repairs
- Social skills: negotiation, handling conflict, argumentation, civil behavior
- Constitutional law

Force kids to learn it....no religious exemptions or excuses.
So it will be when I become dictator.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The school system I work for cut their Shop Class (automotive and woodworking) many many years ago while other surrounding districts kept theirs. These were great classes and it's unfortunate they're gone.

 

[Revoltingest]

The school system I work for cut their Shop Class (automotive and woodworking) many many years ago while other surrounding districts kept theirs. These were great classes and it's unfortunate they're gone.

Here, the schools ditched many trade school type programs for kids who aren't college bound.
It's as though those kids don't matter. Big failure in my book.

 

[Father Heathen]

Your post is the biggest bunch of swill I have ever heard of. The school board answers to the taxpayers and parents and a parent has every right to decide if a child attends a school or not.This is not Nazi Germany and I don't have to sit down and let a bunch of liberal teachers indoctrinate my children into their version of right and wrong.Bad parents are just an excuse to futher the liberal agenda which promotes children having sex and teaching that it is OK.Practice safe sex and you will be OK.Get pregnant, just get an abortion.Homosexuality is normal and experimenting is just fine as long as you practice safe sex.

You just topped it tenfold.

 

[Songbird]

Here, the schools ditched many trade school type programs for kids who aren't college bound.
It's as though those kids don't matter. Big failure in my book.

That's a shame. The single most practical and useful class I took in high school was a home economics class where we learned how to budget and balance a checkbook, among other things. Not that math and science courses aren't crucial, but in terms of daily practicality, I relied on that class for getting on my feet in college. And my parents never once taught me how to balance a checkbook or manage money, which always kind of irked me. I remember asking about it, but it got pushed to the side in their busy lives.