• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sex Ed.

ludahai said:
Why should my rights as a responsible parent be taken away from be due to the fact that some certainly are NOT so responsible?
How exactly does teaching sex ed take away your rights as a responsible parent? Like, I don't know what school your sending your kids to, but in my school they kept out of the moral and ethical arguments, and just gave the facts about STDs and protection. It was part of a class called Health, where along with sex ed we learned CPR, and studied the effects of drinking and drugs.
 
Mixed View said:
I really don't like the analagy that " Well if they do it then we should change everything we teach to make it safer, but the right thing to do we shouldn't teach" Just cause people do it doesn't mean we should change what we teach.

Can everyone admit that abstinence is the healthiest lifestyle, cause if it is then it is the safest, then we should teach it.
I'm not opposed to teaching abstinence in school. What I'm opposed to is teaching ONLY abstinence, because we both know that even in a best case scenario there'll be a few of the high school students getting down regardless, so even if your kids aren't getting laid, someone else's are, and thus the knowledge is still neccisary.
I think that the school should stay out of the morals and ethics of sex, cause that's not a school subject, that's the parents' responsibility. What the school's job is is to teach the facts, i.e. if you have sex, a, b, and c might happen, and a happens about x amount of the time, but if you use a condom a only happens y amount of times. Treat it like any other subject, and leave the actual morals to the families, or for particularly inattentive parents, allow the kids to opt to have someone to talk to about it.
 
ludahai said:
Please don't give me cause to lose respect for you intelligence. Though we usually disagree, I respect you. This is pure lunacy on your part and you know it.
Ah, just because you disagree, the example must be wrong? That sounds quite narcissistic of you. Are you a narcissist?
 
galenrox said:
How exactly does teaching sex ed take away your rights as a responsible parent? Like, I don't know what school your sending your kids to, but in my school they kept out of the moral and ethical arguments, and just gave the facts about STDs and protection. It was part of a class called Health, where along with sex ed we learned CPR, and studied the effects of drinking and drugs.

If THAT is all they are teaching, that is fine. If I see that curriculum, I will not object to it. BUT, if it involves teaching children that using condoms and so-called "safe sex" is the way to go, and that it even involves passing out condomns in school (some schools DO this), than I have every right to opt m children out of that class. It is a violation of my rights as a parent to teach morality.
 
Kelzie said:
No it's not. You seem to be of the opinion that your religious morals are more important than educating your children. Well, than so are mine.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't the church force the guy who discovered the earth was round to recant? Seems religion doesn't really mix well with facts.
What we are talking about is teaching so-called "safe sex" to children. I object to the government going in and telling my children that putting on a condom and having sex is "safe" and acceptable. In your book, perhaps it is. Not in mine. I have a right to teach my children morals, NOT the state. If it violates the religious strictures I am trying to teach my children, I HAVE THE RIGHT to opt my children out of the program.
 
ludahai said:
What we are talking about is teaching so-called "safe sex" to children. I object to the government going in and telling my children that putting on a condom and having sex is "safe" and acceptable. In your book, perhaps it is. Not in mine. I have a right to teach my children morals, NOT the state. If it violates the religious strictures I am trying to teach my children, I HAVE THE RIGHT to opt my children out of the program.

So basically, you agree with everything I said before? A parent can opt their kid out of biology or english because it interfers with their religion?
 
Kelzie said:
So basically, you agree with everything I said before? A parent can opt their kid out of biology or english because it interfers with their religion?

How does the teaching of biology and English compare with what to millions of people is a basic issue of morality that should remain in the home? I simply don't accept your analogy because they aren't comparable.
 
ludahai said:
How does the teaching of biology and English compare with what to millions of people is a basic issue of morality that should remain in the home? I simply don't accept your analogy because they aren't comparable.

There are some people that don't believe any books should be read except the bible. It is against their morals. What you just said is that your religious morals are more valid than theirs. They are the same. One you just happen to agree with. To me, they look equally ridiculous because I don't agree with either.
 
Kelzie said:
There are some people that don't believe any books should be read except the bible. It is against their morals. What you just said is that your religious morals are more valid than theirs. They are the same. One you just happen to agree with. To me, they look equally ridiculous because I don't agree with either.

Can you show me where there are a significant number of people who take this view outside of a few wackos? There are large numbers of people who DON'T want the government to be talking about the fallacy of safe sex with condoms to their 12 year-old children.
 
ludahai said:
Can you show me where there are a significant number of people who take this view outside of a few wackos? There are large numbers of people who DON'T want the government to be talking about the fallacy of safe sex with condoms to their 12 year-old children.

So all of a sudden someone's religious morals have to be in a significant number before we take them seriously? And what determines significance? The majority? Are you really saying the MAJORITY of people don't approve of sex ed?
 
ludahai said:
If THAT is all they are teaching, that is fine. If I see that curriculum, I will not object to it. BUT, if it involves teaching children that using condoms and so-called "safe sex" is the way to go, and that it even involves passing out condomns in school (some schools DO this), than I have every right to opt m children out of that class. It is a violation of my rights as a parent to teach morality.
The idea behind passing out condoms is the fact that condoms aren't cheap, especially on a high schooler's budget, and I think we can all agree that your average high school student, if presented with the opportunity for sex will not avoid taking advantage of the situation. My high school had a seperate office for that sort of thing. Parents had the option whether or not to sign their kid up to be able to go to this office, and at this office they could do all sorts of things, from flu shots to STD tests to birth control to free condoms.

Just because something's offered doesn't mean it's encouraged. I'm yet to meet anyone whose high school didn't heavily push the concept of abstinence. We went through several assemblies about abstinence, and how it's physically and morally best, but the fact is that the type of people who argue for abstinence in front of high school students are the exact type of people that high school students don't take seriously. We did it freshman year, and I can tell you I was one of, but far from the only one who gave her crap the entire time, cause it came across as ridiculous.

And I can tell you that 100% of the reason of why I had so much sex was my response to the teaching of abstinence. This is because the teaching of abstinence deviates from teaching the actual facts of sex, but moreso it was just a whole bunch of scare tactics, like "Do it and your **** will fall off" and what have you. And what happened was I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and decided that I like my **** and would protect it, but then senior year one night I drank a handle of whiskey, and there was a willing female, and the next morning my **** was still firmly in place, so it just made me realize that I had been decieved. So after that I went and had sex with whoever I could whenever the opportunity presented itself. And I lucked out, got away with no pregnancies and no STDs, which isn't half bad since I had sex with 5 different girls in the last 3 months of senior year.

Here's just how it is:
Some kids will have sex, a large portion of them
Kids aren't smart enough to really grasp the responsibility that comes with sex
Kids are smart enough to tell when they're being lied to.

So since a lot, if not most kids are going to have sex before graduation, then we can agree that it is important that they know how to do it as safely as possible.
Kids aren't smart enough to grasp the responsibility behind the act, so thus showing them the actual effects is neccisary.
But since they're smart enough to tell when they're being misled, this means that you have to stick to the actual reality of the situations that will arise. Thus only reasonable scare tactics are ok, with actual statistics, and so on and so forth.

The actual morals behind sex are not a school subject, and should not be taught in school, and this includes pro-abstinence morals. The school is there to teach, but not there to teach morals.
Since I'm assuming you actually have kids, all I can say is I hope you realize that mishandling this part of their development will screw them up more than you can imagine. You have to adress it, and tell them the ACTUAL facts about it, not just trying to scare them away from it until they're mature enough to handle it. If your kids are religious, then your religion's beliefs on sex are appropriate, but if your religious and your kids aren't, then using your religion's approach to sex will just drive them further away and hurt your credibility.
 
galenrox said:
I'm not opposed to teaching abstinence in school. What I'm opposed to is teaching ONLY abstinence, because we both know that even in a best case scenario there'll be a few of the high school students getting down regardless, so even if your kids aren't getting laid, someone else's are, and thus the knowledge is still neccisary.
I think that the school should stay out of the morals and ethics of sex, cause that's not a school subject, that's the parents' responsibility. What the school's job is is to teach the facts, i.e. if you have sex, a, b, and c might happen, and a happens about x amount of the time, but if you use a condom a only happens y amount of times. Treat it like any other subject, and leave the actual morals to the families, or for particularly inattentive parents, allow the kids to opt to have someone to talk to about it.


I like that, but i don't want them encouraging kids to have sex, which is the message you kind of send them whenever you teach about condoms and std's. But kids at my school knew all about condoms and std's by 8th grade. I think it is the parents job to teach thier kids about sex, not the school.
 
Mixed View said:
I like that, but i don't want them encouraging kids to have sex, which is the message you kind of send them whenever you teach about condoms and std's. But kids at my school knew all about condoms and std's by 8th grade. I think it is the parents job to teach thier kids about sex, not the school.
I agree, but then you face the issue that the kids whose parents don't teach them enough if anything, and they end up being the ones who really need it the most, because the families that readily discuss such things are the ones that discuss the different aspects of sex, and so the kids have a much deeper understanding of sex.

I do see that schools teaching kids about safe sex could definately be interpretted as saying "You're ready to do this, so here's how to do it right", sort of like they don't teach you algebra without expecting you to apply it.

I think that the school's position should be to teach the actual facts about it, similar to a science class, and leave the actual moral and maturity issues to the parents.
 
Some of y’all are absolutely unbelievable. Look, teenagers need no encouragement to want to have sex. You show me 100 teens, and I will show you 99 that want to get laid. Is there no one that remembers what it was like to be a teen? Let me tell you, you can teach morals all you want, but you obviously just don’t get it. I had a religious upbringing, but if Moses himself came would have came down and with thunderous words said:

DO NOT HAVE SEX UNTIL MARRIAGE!

I would have said, “yes sir, you can count on me”, then as soon as I figured he was gone I would have been trying to get laid again. All teens want to have sex, they may not tell their mama and daddy that, but that doesn’t mean that’s not the case. The only teens that wait for marriage are the ones that can’t get laid. Of course the same people who think their kids are going to wait for marriage are the same ones that think their kids wont drink or try pot. I am a parent. My wife and I have a five year old son. I hope my son does wait for marriage and doesn’t drink and doesn’t try pot. However, when he is 17, if he is not trying to get laid I have to admit, I am probably going to worry that something is wrong with him. The fact is, it truly is abnormal for a teen not to want to have sex. Do the fundies honestly think their son is hiding the hustlers to tide them over until marriage?

Another thing, these pledges don’t work. If they had them around ten years ago when I was in high school, I know that my buddies and I would have definitely signed the pledge. Reason being is that way when we picked chick up at her parent’s house, we could have told the dad: “Well sir, I did sign the pledge”.

Look, parents who think they can keep their kids from doing things are the ones who end up with pregnant daughters, sons who get strung out on meth or something, and or kids who spread venereal diseases. I know that when my son is in high school even though I don’t want him to, he probably will have sex with his girlfriend, he probably will drink with his friends, and more likely than not, he probably will at least try pot. I would rather my son wait, but I am a realist and if he did these things he would be doing nothing that I didn’t do, my parents didn’t do, and even their parents didn’t do. So my goal as a responsible parent is to make sure the he is smart about it if he is going to do these things.


If he is going to drink, he needs to just go somewhere and drink and not drive around.

If he is going to try pot, then he needs to go somewhere and try it and not drive around or carry the crap around with him.

I don’t want him to do those things, but I am fairly confident that he will do them unless he is one of the 5 out of maybe 100 teens that don’t. So if he is going to do this, I at least want him to be smart about it.

Similarly, I really do want him to wait until marriage, but I doubt he will. So when he turns 16 and gets himself a vehicle, he had better wear his seatbelt, not drink and drive, and keep a box of condoms in the glove box. Because the thing is, if a he has sex, he is going to probably do it whether or not he has some condoms with him or not, but if he has some condoms with him, he probably will use one. At least he sure as hell better. As I wrote earlier, you don’t have to encourage teens to have sex, they want to, that is just a fact. So the realistic and responsible thing to do is to tell them how the best choice is abstinence, but, if they don’t wait, they should definitely use protection.
 
damn straight brother, DAMN straight!!!
Like I was a teenager less than a year ago, and I was a speed addict (hurts libido), and I was on anti-depressents (also hurting the libido) and I once I had sex 8 times in 4 hours while on anti-depressents and high on speed.
Think about that, exactly how sexually driven you have to be to:
a)find someone willing to have sex 8 times in 4 hours
b)actually be able to do so.
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
I agree, but then you face the issue that the kids whose parents don't teach them enough if anything, and they end up being the ones who really need it the most, because the families that readily discuss such things are the ones that discuss the different aspects of sex, and so the kids have a much deeper understanding of sex.

I do see that schools teaching kids about safe sex could definately be interpretted as saying "You're ready to do this, so here's how to do it right", sort of like they don't teach you algebra without expecting you to apply it.

I think that the school's position should be to teach the actual facts about it, similar to a science class, and leave the actual moral and maturity issues to the parents.

Exactly! Maybe the schools can just be used to scare the crap out of kids about sex. Like talk about std's and the consequences of pre-marrital sex.
 
Mixed View said:
Exactly! Maybe the schools can just be used to scare the crap out of kids about sex. Like talk about std's and the consequences of pre-marrital sex.

I think you missed his point. Sex is not scary. We should not be lying to teenagers and telling them all the scary things that will happen to them, if realistically as long as they practice safe sex, it won't happen.
 
Mixed View said:
Exactly! Maybe the schools can just be used to scare the crap out of kids about sex. Like talk about std's and the consequences of pre-marrital sex.
as someone who has personally experienced that, that's not good. I think talking about consequences is basically what the school should do, but they have to be very careful to be accurate, and not blow the risks out of proportion, or they will lose all credibility when the kid loses his/her virginity and the sky doesn't fall.
 
Kelzie said:
I think you missed his point. Sex is not scary. We should not be lying to teenagers and telling them all the scary things that will happen to them, if realistically as long as they practice safe sex, it won't happen.

Well said. It seems our Judeo and Christian "taboos" about our bodies being evil have inhibited us. We are told at a young age that sex is bad, and should only be performed in the act of Love, and then when married. Please, that's why we have condoms. We no longer have to worry about contracting an STD, or getting a female knocked up (well .1% chanceof it). IMO, every parent should explain to their kids how to get the most pleasure out of our sex organs. If they don't, it's like telling them a flute is just for playing music,but not explaining how it works.
 
if some parent opts their kid out of biology or algrebra fine.


Its not my loss....just one less idiot your child would have to put up with in class eh?
 
kal-el said:
Well said. It seems our Judeo and Christian "taboos" about our bodies being evil have inhibited us. We are told at a young age that sex is bad, and should only be performed in the act of Love, and then when married. Please, that's why we have condoms. We no longer have to worry about contracting an STD, or getting a female knocked up (well .1% chanceof it). IMO, every parent should explain to their kids how to get the most pleasure out of our sex organs. If they don't, it's like telling them a flute is just for playing music,but not explaining how it works.

If you read my post earlier, I am all for teaching sex ed in schools and teaching about condom usage. That said, the last thing on earth I would have ever wanted to hear from my Mom or Dad would have been "how to get the most pleasure out of my sex organs".
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If you read my post earlier, I am all for teaching sex ed in schools and teaching about condom usage. That said, the last thing on earth I would have ever wanted to hear from my Mom or Dad would have been "how to get the most pleasure out of my sex organs".

I realize we don't want to hear it. But if our parents fail to inform us about sex or masturbation, we'll learn it on the street. There's a reason why we have sex organs- to give us pleasure, and to multiply. There's nothing to be ashamed of being naked. We were born naked. And masterbation is totally natural, again there's nothing to be ashamed of there.
 
ludahai said:
How does the teaching of biology and English compare with what to millions of people is a basic issue of morality that should remain in the home? I simply don't accept your analogy because they aren't comparable.
Millions of people are so ignorant that they find teaching kids Evolution is against their morals, f.ex. They should be able to opt-out their kids from science class, right?
 
Mixed View said:
Exactly! Maybe the schools can just be used to scare the crap out of kids about sex. Like talk about std's and the consequences of pre-marrital sex.
AH, you mean you want the school to not teach the teens the whole story? Are you so deluded that you think kids won't notice?
 
128shot said:
if some parent opts their kid out of biology or algrebra fine.

Its not my loss....just one less idiot your child would have to put up with in class eh?
And then they can be picking up road kill instead, while your child becomes a physician.
 
Back
Top Bottom