Just out of curiosity, I want to see what varying opinions we all have on Sex Ed being taught to kids at school. So don't forget to vote in the poll and then expand on your voted with words.

 

And before anyone starts questioning why I brought this up, I was watching the episode of Family Guy that talks about the issue and it got me curious.

Im for it. It's not a matter of "they have a right to know" or "it will keep them safe" or any of that nonsense. It's because if you've ever been in a high school, you'd realize that while those kids are f***ing stupid they arent that stupid. They already know about sex, you might as well just tell them anything else. It's such a joke that we've got to live pretending like kids aged 14-18 are the equivalent to those who are 6-13. They're almost adults a that point, they're not that disconnect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ9I8Z2xbwM

My view is basically this: I'm for Sex ed, but ti should be the parents choice whether the student takes the class or not, other than that I could care less.

Abstinence Only education is unbelievably stupid. It's not going to stop kids as early as middle school from being active sexually.

You right but does that mean Abstinence shouldn't be encouraged?

You right but does that mean Abstinence shouldn't be encouraged?

 

 

If it's not religiously charged, and it doesn't preclude frank discussions about condoms, birth control, and STIs, then sure.

No not religiously charged, and yes you should still give them the other information.

Teach it. But enough with the all or nothing fight in abstinence and condoms. If we can encourage ABC education in Africa, I think we can do it in Peoria.

Teach it. But enough with the all or nothing fight in abstinence and condoms. If we can encourage ABC education in Africa, I think we can do it in Peoria.

 

 

But what about Gary and Sheboygan?

As long as parents keep the right to excuse their child from the class, then sure.

i believe it should be enforced at the public school level

 

you want your kid married, barefoot and prego by age 16? then go to a private, religious school....but in a public school, the kids deserve the truth

As long as parents keep the right to excuse their child from the class, then sure.

 

This is a devil's advocate post:

 

Why should the parents be allowed to stop their children from something so important? When I was a kid my mom couldn't go down with a letter and say "No science for my kid, we don't believe he should learn your scientific lies". Why should this be any different?

Teach it. But enough with the all or nothing fight in abstinence and condoms. If we can encourage ABC education in Africa, I think we can do it in Peoria.

 

 

But what about Gary and Sheboygan?

 

 

I've been to Sheboygan, f*** those guys.

This is an interesting experiment:

http://www.globalpost.com/notebook/united-kingdom/090717/britains-new-approach-sex-education-enjoy-it

As long as parents keep the right to excuse their child from the class, then sure.

 

This is a devil's advocate post:

 

Why should the parents be allowed to stop their children from something so important? When I was a kid my mom couldn't go down with a letter and say "No science for my kid, we don't believe he should learn your scientific lies". Why should this be any different?

 

Because they're their children, not the state's. It's a great thing about our government, the fact that your children belong to you and not the government and you're given the choice to raise them however you wish (within reason, of course - you can't teach your kid to murder people.). Sex Education is not an academic discipline, like Science, English, Math, etc. and the controversial aspects of Sex Ed are things that have a great impact on a child's development into an adult. There are also many grey areas, where proper courses of action are just a matter of opinion (abstinence vs safe sex, etc.). Unlike academic subjects, whose purposes are to either prepare a student for life after school, or to culture them, Sex Education is closer to morality and religion, things that a place of academics has no right to teach without consent because, as I said previously, the child belongs to the parent and not the state.

 

 

i believe it should be enforced at the public school level

 

you want your kid married, barefoot and prego by age 16? then go to a private, religious school....but in a public school, the kids deserve the truth

 

 

...If we were living in fascist Italy.

As long as parents keep the right to excuse their child from the class, then sure.

 

This is a devil's advocate post:

 

Why should the parents be allowed to stop their children from something so important? When I was a kid my mom couldn't go down with a letter and say "No science for my kid, we don't believe he should learn your scientific lies". Why should this be any different?

 

Because they're their children, not the state's. It's a great thing about our government, the fact that your children belong to you and not the government and you're given the choice to raise them however you wish (within reason, of course - you can't teach your kid to murder people.). Sex Education is not an academic discipline, like Science, English, Math, etc. and the controversial aspects of Sex Ed are things that have a great impact on a child's development into an adult. There are also many grey areas, where proper courses of action are just a matter of opinion (abstinence vs safe sex, etc.). Unlike academic subjects, whose purposes are to either prepare a student for life after school, or to culture them, Sex Education is closer to morality and religion, things that a place of academics has no right to teach without consent because, as I said previously, the child belongs to the parent and not the state.

 

You still need to address that upon sending their children to public school, which is not the sole option, parents implicitly assent to the school's discretion. This is admittedly complicated by the fact that school is compulsory for children under 16, but it is indeed a factor.

 

It's a good point that Sex Ed is not purely academic; however, neither is P.E., Music, Art, Home Economics, etc. Would you maintain that parents should be able to hold their children out of those classes, as well? That seems like a tough argument to make, but I'm curious to hear your take.

As long as parents keep the right to excuse their child from the class, then sure.

 

This is a devil's advocate post:

 

Why should the parents be allowed to stop their children from something so important? When I was a kid my mom couldn't go down with a letter and say "No science for my kid, we don't believe he should learn your scientific lies". Why should this be any different?

 

Because they're their children, not the state's. It's a great thing about our government, the fact that your children belong to you and not the government and you're given the choice to raise them however you wish (within reason, of course - you can't teach your kid to murder people.). Sex Education is not an academic discipline, like Science, English, Math, etc. and the controversial aspects of Sex Ed are things that have a great impact on a child's development into an adult. There are also many grey areas, where proper courses of action are just a matter of opinion (abstinence vs safe sex, etc.). Unlike academic subjects, whose purposes are to either prepare a student for life after school, or to culture them, Sex Education is closer to morality and religion, things that a place of academics has no right to teach without consent because, as I said previously, the child belongs to the parent and not the state.

 

You still need to address that upon sending their children to public school, which is not the sole option, parents implicitly assent to the school's discretion. This is admittedly complicated by the fact that school is compulsory for children under 16, but it is indeed a factor.

 

It's a good point that Sex Ed is not purely academic; however, neither is P.E., Music, Art, Home Economics, etc. Would you maintain that parents should be able to hold their children out of those classes, as well? That seems like a tough argument to make, but I'm curious to hear your take.

 

At least where I've gone to school, P.E, Home Ec, Music, Art, etc. are electives that students can choose to take. You don't HAVE to be physically fit, or play an instrument, or take an art class. Either way, I'd still classify those as academic disciplines because it's something you can take up at institutions of higher education and further your studies in the subject. P.E. and Home Economics are the exceptions but, again, it's purely optional and there aren't any controversial beliefs taught in those classes that may make a parent feel uncomfortable.

 

Sending your child to public school shouldn't make a difference, because you pay for it with your taxes and so it should serve everyone, not just one group of people. I'm not sure if there's a law against that (my guess is there isn't,) but it's terrible practice to force a state-prescribed sex education on children if the parents do not consent but are funding the class themselves. If the parents believe strongly in their child not learning sex ed from the public school, there's always the possibility of them buckling down and sending their child to private school even if it hurts them economically, which is not something the state wants to see. It's just not a viable option when a compromise has been reached, especially if it's just to satisfy the rather radical (and small) group of people who believe in forcing sex ed beliefs down others' throats.

So you don't think the existence of Dinosaurs should be taught?

So you don't think the existence of Dinosaurs should be taught?

 

 

What? Science is an academic discipline and therefore suitable for school. I'm afraid I've already said this...Twice.

But Satan put fossils in the ground to test people's faith.

 

You can't say science should be taught in school (Even though in contradicts a lot of religious things and creates controversy), but then sex education can't (Because of religious nuts and is controversial). I mean, is sex education not science?

 

I would have gone with evolution and it'd be more "current' considering the fact that there is debates about teaching evolution v.s. creationism, but dinosaurs are funnier.

But Satan put fossils in the ground to test people's faith.

 

You can't say science should be taught in school (Even though in contradicts a lot of religious things and creates controversy), but then sex education can't (Because of religious nuts and is controversial). I mean, is sex education not science?

 

I would have gone with evolution and it'd be more "current' considering the fact that there is debates about teaching evolution v.s. creationism, but dinosaurs are funnier.

 

 

Uh, dude, no one mentioned Christianity till you did just now.

But Satan put fossils in the ground to test people's faith.

 

You can't say science should be taught in school (Even though in contradicts a lot of religious things and creates controversy), but then sex education can't (Because of religious nuts and is controversial). I mean, is sex education not science?

 

I would have gone with evolution and it'd be more "current' considering the fact that there is debates about teaching evolution v.s. creationism, but dinosaurs are funnier.

 

 

 

Wow, dude. READ. Not once did I say sex education shouldn't be taught in school; I said that the parents should have a say in whether or not their child participates because of the particular circumstances. Unlike evolution, which has some sort of proof and scientific base (and science teachers generally treat in a way that respects faith anyway), Sex Ed is very opinion-based (abstinence vs. safe sex) and should be left to the parents if they wish. The point is to educate them one way or the other, not to make them think how you think and believe what you believe. Saying Sex Ed has to be taught because it's science is pushing it. They already teach human growth, development and reproduction - that isn't the problem. The main controversy is the encouragement of safe sex over abstinence. It is totally understandable to teach safe sex over abstinence as long as you don't force everyone to sit through it, and no actual proof (such as evolution has) justifies having to teach it to someone who is religious. Most people who want to force the class on everyone wouldn't sacrifice teaching safe sex over abstinence in order to make the class suitable for everyone, which makes one question whether their motive is to actually inform people of sex, or rather to use the state to subdue the influence of religion in a country that's supposed to respect it.

But Satan put fossils in the ground to test people's faith.

 

You can't say science should be taught in school (Even though in contradicts a lot of religious things and creates controversy), but then sex education can't (Because of religious nuts and is controversial). I mean, is sex education not science?

 

I would have gone with evolution and it'd be more "current' considering the fact that there is debates about teaching evolution v.s. creationism, but dinosaurs are funnier.

 

 

Uh, dude, no one mentioned Christianity till you did just now.

He's right though.

But Satan put fossils in the ground to test people's faith.

 

You can't say science should be taught in school (Even though in contradicts a lot of religious things and creates controversy), but then sex education can't (Because of religious nuts and is controversial). I mean, is sex education not science?

 

I would have gone with evolution and it'd be more "current' considering the fact that there is debates about teaching evolution v.s. creationism, but dinosaurs are funnier.

 

 

Uh, dude, no one mentioned Christianity till you did just now.

He's right though.

 

No he's not, no one mentioned religion in this debate till he did, and it's irrelevant to this debate. As much as Christianity forbids pre-marital sex, it does not forbid learning what you need to be safe, so what he said is irrelevant.