Utah's Proposed Sex Ed Law

[dawny0826]

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'?

It's unlikely that babies and diseases are going to result from learning math and language.

The public school system is a good thing. I've stated that I don't take issue with sex education in general. But, yes, I absolutely feel that parents should be ultimately responsible for their kids' sex education, specifically as there are cultural and religious perspectives on the issue that make it challenging to come to a consensus as to HOW this education should be approached and provided in the PUBLIC school system.

How in-depth should we go into discussion about sexuality in sex-ed? I respect that Reverend Rick has mentioned this underlying hypocrisy that I too see.

I don't have a problem at all with homosexuals or communicating openly about the importance of safe sex practice for the LBGTQ community. But, I don't think that the public school system is the place to promote any type of mindset, other than direct respect for the people within the classroom.

I don't need to know your sexuality Koldo, to speak with you respectfully and to engage with you in a public environment. And you don't need to get into my business either. We can promote a tolerant environment without talking sexuality. We can talk about sex and the importance of safe sex without discussing sexuality.

If the public school sysems go there, I hope people see that there's no difference in the religious kids trying to bring their religious stuff into school. EXTRA STUFF that doesn't belong. Yes, you want youth to be tolerant of everyone...I want my kids to be tolerant and kind to everyone...but I'm teaching these lessons at home...I don't expect it from the public school system.

 

[Koldo]

It's unlikely that babies and diseases are going to result from learning math and language.

I didn't know babies and diseases were a result of sexual ed classes. :sarcastic

The public school system is a good thing. I've stated that I don't take issue with sex education in general. But, yes, I absolutely feel that parents should be ultimately responsible for their kids' sex education, specifically as there are cultural and religious perspectives on the issue that make it challenging to come to a consensus as to HOW this education should be approached and provided in the PUBLIC school system.

Presenting the facts just like any other subject.

How in-depth should we go into discussion about sexuality in sex-ed? I respect that Reverend Rick has mentioned this underlying hypocrisy that I too see.

I don't have a problem at all with homosexuals or communicating openly about the importance of safe sex practice for the LBGTQ community. But, I don't think that the public school system is the place to promote any type of mindset, other than direct respect for the people within the classroom.

I don't think anyone ever mentioned promoting any type of mindset.

I don't need to know your sexuality Koldo, to speak with you respectfully and to engage with you in a public environment. And you don't need to get into my business either. We can promote a tolerant environment without talking sexuality. We can talk about sex and the importance of safe sex without discussing sexuality.

I don't see how children can have a good grasp of the subject without eventually talking about sexuality. After all, it is the sexuality that will define in what sexual activities an individual will engage.

And this brings us back to my question: What do you mean by 'in-depth conversation about homosexuality'?

If the public school sysems go there, I hope people see that there's no difference in the religious kids trying to bring their religious stuff into school. EXTRA STUFF that doesn't belong. Yes, you want youth to be tolerant of everyone...I want my kids to be tolerant and kind to everyone...but I'm teaching these lessons at home...I don't expect it from the public school system.

How do you determine what is the 'EXTRA STUFF that doesn't belong'?
What criteria do you use?

 

[dawny0826]

I didn't know babies and diseases were a result of sexual ed classes. :sarcastic

Seriously? Come on now.

Presenting the facts just like any other subject.

And what facts are we talking about?

Are we going to go into detail about how one has anal and oral sex too when some of these practices are illegal in certain states and certain kids' are of religious persuasions to where this type of discussion could be offensive?

I'm sorry...but, people ARE offended with the idea of religion being brought into the school system because it offends other people and violates separation of church and state. What's the difference here?

This is the hypocrisy that I'm talking about. Think about the big picture. You can present sex-ed in an ALL INCLUSIVE manner, without focusing on sexuality.

I don't think anyone ever mentioned promoting any type of mindset.

It has been mentioned on this thread that talking "straight up" about homosexuality in sex-ed "promotes" tolerance and if this wasn't the word used, I'll edit this post appropriately.

Edit: "build up tolerance" See Post #98 by jarofthoughts

I don't see how children can have a good grasp of the subject without eventually talking about sexuality. After all, it is the sexuality that will define in what sexual activities an individual will engage.

Yeah, but why should this discussion be had in the PUBLIC school system?

And this brings us back to my question: What do you mean by 'in-depth conversation about homosexuality'?

What do you mean by "in depth"? I don't have an answer, but I think that the deeper you go into discussions on sexuality in a sex-ed class, the more hypocrisy there is, when you can openly discuss things that some people will take offense to, because it appeases a certain audience, but with other issues, the same attitude doesn't exist in the school system.

How do you determine what is the 'EXTRA STUFF that doesn't belong'?
What criteria do you use?

Separation of church and state.

 

[dawny0826]

This thread is in General Discussion, not debates.

 

[Koldo]

Seriously? Come on now.

Seriously. It is my place to say: Come on now...

And what facts are we talking about?

Are we going to go into detail about how one has anal and oral sex too when some of these practices are illegal in certain states and certain kids' are of religious persuasions to where this type of discussion could be offensive?

What do you mean by 'into detail'?
This vagueness is confusing. If by that you mean covering what positions can be used while at it, then i don't find it necessary. However, if by that you mean what kind of behaviour puts one into a higher risk to get a STD and what can be done to reduce this risk while engaging into this practice, then i do find it necessary.

Telling children what and how a thing is done is completely different to giving incentive for them to do it.

I'm sorry...but, people ARE offended with the idea of religion being brought into the school system because it offends other people and violates separation of church and state. What's the difference here?

This is the hypocrisy that I'm talking about. Think about the big picture. You can present sex-ed in an ALL INCLUSIVE manner, without focusing on sexuality.

How can it not be different?
Teaching about subjects with a religious lens is wrong because it tends to be full of unsupported claims, while teaching about subjects through scientific lens is not. I thought this had already been estabilished.

I don't think sexuality has to be a focus on sexual ed classes. Just that it has to be a part of the subjects it deals with.

It has been mentioned on this thread that talking "straight up" about homosexuality in sex-ed "promotes" tolerance and if this wasn't the word used, I'll edit this post appropriately.

Edit: "build up tolerance" See Post #98 by jarofthoughts

So, do you think public schools are not the place to help build up tolerance with other individuals? Really? :sarcastic

Yeah, but why should this discussion be had in the PUBLIC school system?

Why NOT?
It is the place where children are supposed to go to learn about things that will be important in their lives.

What do you mean by "in depth"? I don't have an answer, but I think that the deeper you go into discussions on sexuality in a sex-ed class, the more hypocrisy there is, when you can openly discuss things that some people will take offense to, because it appeases a certain audience, but with other issues, the same attitude doesn't exist in the school system.

It was you who used the term 'in-depth'. So i wanted some clarification on what you meant by that.

What has to be taken into consideration when teaching something to children is NOT whether something offends people, but rather whether this information is going to be relevant to children and if the matter is being dealt with as unbiased and objective as possible.

What other issues are you talking about?

Separation of church and state.

And where does sex fit into that?

 

[McBell]

**wonders why so many people think that "sex ed" in schools is proposed to be akin to making porn**

 

[McBell]

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.

I see.
So your problem is homosexuality.

 

[waitasec]

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?

this entire nation is full of broken families and homes...

American Vice: Mapping the 7 Deadly Sins

pay attention to the bible belt when it comes to STD's

 

[dawny0826]

Is it possible for a MOD to move this to debates, since that's the direction this has been going for some time now?

Seriously. It is my place to say: Come on now...?

If you're not satisfied with my answer, that's fine.

What do you mean by 'into detail'?
This vagueness is confusing. If by that you mean covering what positions can be used while at it, then i don't find it necessary. However, if by that you mean what kind of behaviour puts one into a higher risk to get a STD and what can be done to reduce this risk while engaging into this practice, then i do find it necessary

I agree with what you've stated above. We're on the same page.

I'm genuinely asking you this question for the purposes of this discussion. What types of detail should be discussed in sex-ed classes in terms of homosexuality?

Factual and statistical information which reiterates the importance of safer sex practices.

Telling children what and how a thing is done is completely different to giving incentive for them to do it.

Yes.

How can it not be different?
Teaching about subjects with a religious lens is wrong because it tends to be full of unsupported claims, while teaching about subjects through scientific lens is not. I thought this had already been estabilished.

Presenting fact in a neutral manner to educate is one thing. Presenting fact with any underlying intent would be wrong. The public school system has no business promoting acceptance of homosexuality as it has no business promoting acceptance of any religion. This is all I'm saying. I've only commented on what others have said. And I've acknowledged an underlying hyprocisy. If you don't see that, I'm sorry. I do.

I don't think sexuality has to be a focus on sexual ed classes. Just that it has to be a part of the subjects it deals with.

Okay. I don't disagree with you.

So, do you think public schools are not the place to help build up tolerance with other individuals? Really? :sarcastic

You can't educate and enforce tolerance for certain groups and not ALL, to genuinely demonstrate tolerance. That's all I'm saying.

Why NOT?
It is the place where children are supposed to go to learn about things that will be important in their lives.

See above. I don't have a problem with tolerance, Koldo. It's important to me, but it has to be approached in a fair manner and I see a lot of hypocrisies in society.

It was you who used the term 'in-depth'. So i wanted some clarification on what you meant by that.

I know. I hope I'm making better sense now.

What has to be taken into consideration when teaching something to children is NOT whether something offends people, but rather whether this information is going to be relevant to children and if the matter is being dealt with as unbiased and objective as possible.

I think there needs to be some concern as to whether or not students are offended, as their parents are paying for the education, through their tax dollars.

What other issues are you talking about?

And where does sex fit into that?

It's not uncommon for people to be up in arms over religious thought or practice being imposed within the public school system, because of the obligation to keep church and state separated.

If a sex-ed course isn't elective, and a parent objects to the content because they feel that it violates personal religious views, what of their rights? That's where I'm coming from.

There's that line that can be crossed. We have to be sensitive in one area, but in another situation, let's not be sensitive, because this is education and fact overrides everyone else, regardless of their rights.

 

[Father Heathen]

this entire nation is full of broken families and homes...

American Vice: Mapping the 7 Deadly Sins

pay attention to the bible belt when it comes to STD's

How ironic. Naturally, not being knowledgeable about proper birth control is going to result in more pregnancies and STDs than would being knowledgable about it.

 

[Koldo]

If you're not satisfied with my answer, that's fine.

It is not a matter of being satisfied.

When i asked you if/why math should be taught in public schools, you replied saying learning math won't result in babies and diseases.

However, learning about sex also won't result in babies and diseases. So...

Presenting fact in a neutral manner to educate is one thing. Presenting fact with any underlying intent would be wrong. The public school system has no business promoting acceptance of homosexuality as it has no business promoting acceptance of any religion. This is all I'm saying. I've only commented on what others have said. And I've acknowledged an underlying hyprocisy. If you don't see that, I'm sorry. I do.

I suspect the facts are always presented with some sort of intent. The first one always being to educate.

Either way, who gets to say the school has no business promoting acceptance of homosexuality?

Other than that, i don't think sexual ed classes, in general, have the intent of building up tolerance. I suspect that may be more like a by-product when it happens.

Also, hypocrisy on regards to what?
You have been talking about hypocrisy, but never pointed out what exactly you are talking about.

You can't educate and enforce tolerance for certain groups and not ALL, to genuinely demonstrate tolerance. That's all I'm saying.

See above. I don't have a problem with tolerance, Koldo. It's important to me, but it has to be approached in a fair manner and I see a lot of hypocrisies in society.

Enforce tolerance?
I don't think that is the aim of sexual ed classes.

I think there needs to be some concern as to whether or not students are offended, as their parents are paying for the education, through their tax dollars.

Their children's health is far more important than that.

It's not uncommon for people to be up in arms over religious thought or practice being imposed within the public school system, because of the obligation to keep church and state separated.

If a sex-ed course isn't elective, and a parent objects to the content because they feel that it violates personal religious views, what of their rights? That's where I'm coming from.

They don't have any, or at least, shouldn't.

There's that line that can be crossed. We have to be sensitive in one area, but in another situation, let's not be sensitive, because this is education and fact overrides everyone else, regardless of their rights.

This brings up an important point: If theory of evolution is not elective in a biology class, should the parents have a saying whether the child is going to learn about it? What if the parents believe the ToE is not true, and it is against their religious views?

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Thread moved to the General Debates forum.​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here is one that is spot on topic:

Brand new ‘guidelines’ pushing radical, explicit sex ed agenda on schools nationwide | LifeSiteNews.com

Their guidelines seem to be good. These especially are things that all high schoolers should know:

By the end of 12th grade, the curriculum prescribes that students should be able to “differentiate between biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression.”
It also recommends that students be able to “compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of abstinence and other contraceptive methods, including condoms,” and “explain how to access local STD and HIV testing and treatment services.”

But in all reality you talking to your children about sex makes you a very slim minority. But sex education isn't the only thing the schools should pick up on because the parents aren't. Nutrition is an excellent example of something parents should be teaching to their kids, but for some reason most of them aren't.
Sex is not an issue of morality, it is an issue of major health concern. Many schools already teach students many health related things such as CPR and other first aid procedures (something else the parents should be able to teach to their children but aren't), so why not extend it to a health issue that effects far more students than those who will be in the position of needing to perform CPR.
And don't take it so personally. If you talked to your kids about sex it should seem as absolutely nothing as it will be stuff you should have already taught them, especially things like proper anatomical names, and because the mentioned guidelines include highlighting gender roles and how society influences them is one of the most empowering things anyone can realize. And as a double it also helps to build character when put up against peer pressure.

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?

But these classes do not encourage kids to go have sex. They do not corrupt "family beliefs" and if they have anything to do about family it can potentially help because it empowers students with knowledge of not only infections, contraception, pregnancy, and sex, but a good course will also help to enlighten students about peer pressure to have sex and techniques to rise above the pressure. This alone can rise a student's self-esteem and self-image, which has many beneficial consequences in life in general. But a good course will also include abstinence. Rather such classes are acknowledging that most parents are too embarrassed, ashamed, or view it as improper to use terms like penis, vagina, and anus in front of their children, and that most parents are not talking to their children about social influences of sexuality. At an older age it is acknowledging that students are going to start taking what will seem to them an unusual interest in certain people, and that again most parents will not explain this to their children in a way that will prepare them for their upcoming years of puberty. And then these courses acknowledge that most high school students are sexually active and most parents would just rather pretend their child is still their innocent little boy or girl.
And if you truly think it is the responsibility of the parents, then you may as well throw out every elective, as after all every parent should be able to tell their child how to raise a child, how to cook, how to repair an engine, and how to type as these are things that are necessary and beneficial, and any parent should have the knowledge to pass to their child. You might as well as toss out English and Math classes as well, as any parent should be able to teach their child how to write a properly APA cited research paper, and be able to teach them calculus based physics without any problems. Except not every parent will know these things, and very obviously many parents are either ignorant about sex themselves, refuse to teach their children, both, or some other possibility.

 

[connermt]

Utah recently passed legistlation that, if signed into law, bans teaching about contraception and homosexuality to public school students. Do you think that sort of law will catch on in other states?

I doubt it will catch on in many other states, if any. The majority of Utah seems to be unique in how they see things.
As far as teaching it goes, not all kids are able to handle it at the same age. But that goes for anything. There needs to be a point at which schools introduce the concept to kids, while allowing the parents to pick up the details.
What that age is.....maybe between 6 & 10...?

 

[backwateru]

it's a stupid law. how can one expect to be informed if he is not informed in the first place?

 

[beenie]

I have a theory which seems to surprise and offend most people - I think no topic is off-limits to kids, and that "age-appropriate" is a BS term to shield them from various effects of knowledge - like fear, passing on inappropriate information to their friends, etc. But I think not telling kids things - and telling them that they're not allowed to know those things - is breeding grounds for more curiosity about whatever they're being shielded from. It can foster obsession, and they inherit our strange need to hide the information too. In other words, they learn that sex is bad, they seek to find out why, and they hide their seeking from their parents.

I tell my kids pretty openly and matter-of-factly about what's going on in their surroundings, whether they ask about a financial matter, why their dad and I may have argued, etc. Involving them in discussions about things they're afraid of seems to ease their fear and make them feel respected and valued as people who can process information. I think it also encourages a curiosity that will help their intelligence as they grow.

Once again, TMI alert, but one recent example....my 10-year-old son walked in on me in the bathroom when I was menstruating. He said, "So that's what the girls in my class will go through starting about next year, huh?" (I'm not a nudist, but I forget to lock doors.) It's just life.

My point is it's very important to me to teach my kids a sense of level-headedness and desire to learn, and keeping things in the dark impedes that. If they sense that I'll freak out about something, they won't approach me and they'll be freaked out too.

And in my opinion, nothing is sacred. Nothing is too inappropriate to discuss, wonder about, learn about.

I'm pretty much on the same page as you on this. Because of my husband's culture (and, by default, my in-laws also) I have to be careful how I word things; they tend to repeat. Anyway, I keep it so matter-of-fact that it's really not "interesting" enough for them to repeat. I'm talking mainly about identifying body parts, etc.

When I talk to my older daughters, I do so assuming they already know most of it; I just make sure they know the correct information about it. We talk about anything and everything.

 

[Sunstone]

I have a theory which seems to surprise and offend most people -

Surprise and offend? It astonishes me how much like you your theory must be!

 

[T-Dawg]

Some of the arguments here make absolutely no sense. We're talking about sexual reproduction - something incredibly important and emotional. It seems absolutely absurd to me that anyone would even consider letting the individual handle this. Things like education and reproduction are among the first things that should be regulated by the State without parental interference.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Things like education and reproduction are among the first things that should be regulated by the State without parental interference.

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.

 

[Sunstone]

All the problems we Americans have as a society with sex education would be solved in one swoop if we would just come to our senses and ship all our children abroad to work in the gold mines of Brazil. Think about it.