Teens And Sex

[shesulsa]

Parents yes, teachers no.

The state has a valid interest in some aspects of sexual behavior. However, the root issue is morality, which is the domain of the parents.

Since I've typed on this topic before and read many of the arguments, I scanned this one and decided to post, once again, my address to the above short-sightedness.

The state and/or feds will be paying for young people and their children who can't make ends meet. This is the way we continue working towards a near-complete welfare (or assistance) generation.

Sex is a health issue first and foremost which happens to carry moral implications. Can a person have healthy sex in an immoral way? Of course. Can a person have unhealthy sex in a moral way? Of course. It is a two-pronged issue that must be addressed bilaterally and symbiotically.

The impact on public health is undeniable. That said, competent, correct instruction simply MUST be mandated. In fact, I see this as at least as big an issue as the vaccine controversy and herd immunity.

Health instruction should be given by competent and licensed health professionals.

Moral instruction should be given by parents and any other virtue-based groups they choose (church, etc).

I just won't back down from this. There are FAR too many kids out there getting incorrect information from schools and many who stay home and get NOTHING or bad information from parents.

It should be a bigger campaign than the AIDS campaign - we have an entire world-level class of young people having children and unable to earn a decent wage for a progressive lifestyle let alone PAY for THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[MJS]

No, I'm not OK with it. I'm very much against it. I'm also against defaulting authority to the government when parents abdicate.

Suggestions then? Yes, I'm looking for something other than "The state has no right...blah blah" If you're going to say the schools have no right to teach sex ed, then please provide me with something.

Furthermore, I really dont see anything wrong with some basic common sense things being taught. I say common sense, because many kids and parents alike, seriously lack in that dept. These classes are usually part of Health class...sex ed is a simple part of that. At least the kids would know something.

The state dictates many things. That does not mean it has authority to dictate everything.

See above. Again, at least the kids would know something.

I'd be very upset. Full disclosure, I have no kids, and at my age, I'm not likely to have any. Just FYI, that was a conscious decision.

However, I have three younger sisters, two of whom got pregnant at an early age. I now have nieces and grand-nieces, and I'm 49. That's crazy. I think kids are having sex way too early, I think parents abdicate their jobs as parents, and I think the results cost society dearly, in both financial and cultural ways.

Likewise my wife and I, as well as my sister and her husband, do not have kids. However if I did, I wouldnt hide the reality that kids will have sex, drink, drive like *******s, and so on. My mother raised me to have good common sense and it didn't fail me, when I was at a party, didn't have a way home, etc. They'd rather have me call them at 1am to get a ride, rather than a call from the cops telling them I was dead. Did I get punished for being around underage drinkers? Not at all.

Teaching history is not handing out condoms. You suggested "a) proper education and b) methods of birthcontrol."

Simply an example Bill. If you said that the state has no right to dictate whats taught, then what if they dont like how (insert anything) is taught? Pull the kid out of school and home school them? Then again, maybe thats a better option, given the state of the schools today. And I'm talking about the gangs, drugs, violence, etc.

I take the issue very seriously. I'm very concerned about teen pregnancy, single parents, and the costs to society. I am well aware that most parents refuse to step up to the plate and do their duty as parents.

I am also aware that a large segment of our population expects the government to solve problems for them. Name a social ill, and then explain how the government is best-suited to fix the problem. Then demand that the government do so. This is socialism at best, creeping statism at worst. It leads directly to authoritarian regimes. Remember, most authoritarian dictatorships were not imposed from without - they were created from within, usually by popular acclaim.


The left and the right both do the same thing, and then they blame each other for big government run amok. First describe the problem, then demand that government 'do something' about it.

Well, here's the thing. The problem affects us all; and it's a serious problem. But giving the government control over it is not the solution.

First, you have the issue of federalism. Currently, the states run the schools.

Second, you have the issue of local standards and local control; in many or even most areas of the USA, the local school board, made up of people who have day jobs, running the schools and setting policy. Historically, we've demanded that, and historically, the courts have agreed; local communities know best what should be taught in local schools.

Third, you have the issue that not all parents want sex education taught in public schools, nor condoms distributed to children, and NOT because they want kids having sex or they think it's just nifty keen that Junior has a Junior at age 13, but because their own sense of morals or perhaps their religious scruples forbid it. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, we (and I include myself in this) tend to see our own beliefs as the 'reasonable' ones and to not take the beliefs of others into account. Sex Ed reasonable? You may think so; I may think so. But if the entire school board of Lower Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas thinks we're full of it, you're going to impose your will on them because you know best? By the way, I'm not picking on Lower Pig's Knuckle. Part of my dad's family was from Mountain Home, Arkansas, and that's what it was called once.

I realize that the temptation, when parents abdicate their jobs, is to turn to the government to fix things. It's easy to do. But it is generally a mistake. Government will be HAPPY to take over whatever little problem we might tell them about, but I don't think we'll be as happy when they do.

Hilary Rodham Clinton once said "It takes a village to raise a child." That's basically what you're advocating here. Government teaching sex education and handing out condoms because parents won't or choose not to. The village, for lack of a better term, can go pound sand. The village has a say in the child learning math, to read and write, but not how to introduce their phallum bway-bway into Susie's hoo-ha.

Its a shame that some parents are still living in the dark ages, in denial that things change. Funny because there are some martial artists that dont agree with change either. There must be something in the air. LOL. Anyways Bill....this may be one of those many threads that you and I will agree to disagree, as you seem not willing to budge, nor do I. I feel that if a parent isnt happy with sex ed in school, fine, they dont have to be...but they should do it then! They should teach their kids something, anything, because their kids, despite being brought up, raised however the family sees fit, should understand that peer pressure, and of course natural temptation, will always be there. If you raise your kid to not have sex until marriage, great!!! But, dont wait until the girl is 30, 2 days before the wedding and you pick then to talk about sex. LOL. During the dont have sex until marriage, do this and do that chats, explain about birthcontrol, the various forms, and so on.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Lets not forget school choice. Parents can still choose schools that teach their children whatever they wish.

Parents (and non-parents like me) still pay taxes for public schools even if they school their children elsewhere. I have no kids, but I still have a dog in this fight; I pay the same taxes everyone else does for public schools, even though I have no children.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Suggestions then? Yes, I'm looking for something other than "The state has no right...blah blah" If you're going to say the schools have no right to teach sex ed, then please provide me with something.

Yes, my suggestion is that parents step up, or we suffer the consequences. This is basic to freedom. It is not acceptable (to me) to argue that because parents won't, the government must. There is a third option; it's called failing. Freedom means freedom to suck too.

Furthermore, I really dont see anything wrong with some basic common sense things being taught. I say common sense, because many kids and parents alike, seriously lack in that dept. These classes are usually part of Health class...sex ed is a simple part of that. At least the kids would know something.

See my note about 'reasonable'. You don't see anything wrong with it. Many parents do. Their opinions don't matter?

See above. Again, at least the kids would know something.

Yes, they would. And many parents think that teaching them about it is the same as encouraging them to do it, especially when accompanied by making free birth control and STD prevention available.

And some argue that it is far worse than teaching abstinence.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/abstinence.study/index.html

Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths

By Ashley Hayes, CNN
February 2, 2010 6:28 p.m. EST
(CNN) -- An abstinence-only education program is more effective than other initiatives at keeping sixth- and seventh-graders from having sex within a two-year period, according to a study described by some as a landmark.
The study, published in the current issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, indicated that about one-third of the preteens and their young teen classmates who received an eight-hour abstinence lesson had sexual intercourse within two years of the class.
By comparison, more than half of the students who were taught about safe sex and condom use reported having intercourse by the two-year mark, and more than 40 percent of students who received either an eight- or 12-hour lesson incorporating both abstinence education and safe sex reported having sex at two years.

Likewise my wife and I, as well as my sister and her husband, do not have kids. However if I did, I wouldnt hide the reality that kids will have sex, drink, drive like *******s, and so on. My mother raised me to have good common sense and it didn't fail me, when I was at a party, didn't have a way home, etc. They'd rather have me call them at 1am to get a ride, rather than a call from the cops telling them I was dead. Did I get punished for being around underage drinkers? Not at all.

Again, that's what you see as reasonable. If we were sitting around having a beer, I might well agree with you, that sounds pretty reasonable. But other parents disagree and they have the right to disagree. They also have the right, via the local school boards, to set standards based on local values. You are sidestepping my comments with regard to that. Do they have the right to set those local standards based on local values or not?

Simply an example Bill. If you said that the state has no right to dictate whats taught, then what if they dont like how (insert anything) is taught? Pull the kid out of school and home school them? Then again, maybe thats a better option, given the state of the schools today. And I'm talking about the gangs, drugs, violence, etc.

I didn't say the state has no right to dictate anything that is taught. The basics are well-recognized and required. This is our nod to a common public school education, and it establishes basic learning standards. These are testable and include things like reading, writing, civics, history, and so on. These basics are also the purview of the individual states, and local school boards set curricula. Many do not teach sex education because they do not want to.

Its a shame that some parents are still living in the dark ages, in denial that things change. Funny because there are some martial artists that dont agree with change either. There must be something in the air. LOL. Anyways Bill....this may be one of those many threads that you and I will agree to disagree, as you seem not willing to budge, nor do I. I feel that if a parent isnt happy with sex ed in school, fine, they dont have to be...but they should do it then! They should teach their kids something, anything, because their kids, despite being brought up, raised however the family sees fit, should understand that peer pressure, and of course natural temptation, will always be there. If you raise your kid to not have sex until marriage, great!!! But, dont wait until the girl is 30, 2 days before the wedding and you pick then to talk about sex. LOL. During the dont have sex until marriage, do this and do that chats, explain about birthcontrol, the various forms, and so on.

I could not agree more with the above statements. We're in perfect agreement that if the school does not provide Sex Ed training, the parents should. Absolutely. When the parents fail in this basic duty, they really do harm to their children and to society through the costs that we will all have to absorb.

I just happen to be resistant to calls for government to intervene whenever 'something must be done' and no one is doing it. The government's duties do not include providing moral guidance to children regarding sex (and I do not believe that the moral aspect can be separated from the biological aspect). I agree that something must be done. I do not agree that the government must do it. Failing is an option in a free society.

 

[Blade96]

I agree with you that most parents abdicate. That doesn't make it the job of the state to do.

I understand that it's a gray area. The state definitely has a vested interest in public health issues, and it will have more of an interest in times to come, what with socialized medicine taking hold. However, in issues of parent's rights versus the rights of the state, I tend to sway towards parents. It bothers me that so many parents are booger-eatin' morons, but that is the danger of a free society.

Hehehe. yeah, right. Its because of things like that that my younger cousins were 12 and 11 years old and their mother got mad at me because I used the word 'penis' around them. They were 12 and werent supposed to know the proper words nor was they supposed to know about sex or anything! (that mother btw got pregnant at age 16.)

a few weeks ago i was using the restroom and my nine year old cousin walked in on me. she said why are you BLEEDING!? (Obviously it was that time of the month.) I knew her mother (my first cousin) hadnt told her the facts of life even though people can get PREGNANT at that age! So i told her what was that and why it happens every month. I told her not to tell, because her mother would KILL me. But the girl needed to know for god's sake!

My bro and i were told all about sex and the birds and bees. Its the reason I never lost V early and neither did my bro.

But my mom's family has a history of having babies early and not being terribly educated. and not telling the kids anything.

and thats more draining and more dangerous to a society than having the state having it in school curriculums.

letting 100% parents go be stupid and not having the state provide some education like that? I'd say Oh no no, a mother****ing no....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

letting 100% parents go be stupid and not having the state provide some education like that? I'd say Oh no no, a mother****ing no....

This is the argument, boiled down to the essence:

The state has the right to take action to protect itself from economic costs incurred by the poor choices made by citizens.

In other words, if parents won't teach their children about sex, the the state suffers economically and therefore must protect itself by doing the teaching instead of the parents.

However, this means that the state has the right to make you exercise, lose weight, eat a healthy diet. Our poor nutrition and lack of exercise and obesity cost the state FAR MORE than teens having babies. Do you agree? If you agree that the state has the right to protect itself from the poor choices its citizens make, then you must agree.

In reality, our system of laws give the government very little power over the upbringing of children, and that's intentional. We'd rather live in a nation of children raised according to their parent's wishes than live in a society of state-run, state-approved set of beliefs and morals.

The upside of freedom is that we have the right to raise our children as we wish. The downside of freedom is that if we do a sucky job of it, we all suffer as a result. Your argument is that society has more of a right to intervene than parents have to raise their own children. Your argument about the costs of non-interference has merit. However, it also implies costs in terms of interference in all other aspects of our freedom. I don't approve of giving away of freedom to save money.

 

[Ramirez]

The upside of freedom is that we have the right to raise our children as we wish. .

Not quite, the state intervenes in the raising of children all the time, it mandates a minimum level of care and education. Children are not possessions but citizens.

There are strict laws on what can and can't be done , you can't be beating the hell out of your children because that is what you wish, the state will quickly come in and do something about that.

The question is where to draw the line on state intervention. There was a good post earlier that parents can deal with the morality of sex and the government deal with the mechanics of birth control.

That makes sense, somehow I think most parents will avoid going through the standard instruction of using a banana to show how to slip on a condom.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not quite, the state intervenes in the raising of children all the time, it mandates a minimum level of care and education. Children are not possessions but citizens.

There are strict laws on what can and can't be done , you can't be beating the hell out of your children because that is what you wish, the state will quickly come in and do something about that.

The question is where to draw the line on state intervention. There was a good post earlier that parents can deal with the morality of sex and the government deal with the mechanics of birth control.

That makes sense, somehow I think most parents will avoid going through the standard instruction of using a banana to show how to slip on a condom.

The state says how fast I can drive my car, but they can't tell me what color to paint it. Just because the state has some controls doesn't mean it has all controls.

Control over curriculum currently belongs to local school boards. The courts have traditionally upheld the right of local communities to set standards according to local values. If they don't want to teach Sex Ed, do they have that right or not?

 

[Stac3y]

IMO, provision of factual information is NEVER an infringement of rights. Then again, I'm a librarian. Provision of information is my job, and one of my passions.

 

[Ramirez]

The state says how fast I can drive my car, but they can't tell me what color to paint it. Just because the state has some controls doesn't mean it has all controls.

Control over curriculum currently belongs to local school boards. The courts have traditionally upheld the right of local communities to set standards according to local values. If they don't want to teach Sex Ed, do they have that right or not?

That is my point, its all a question of where the state's level of control should be set . Like I said before children are citizens, not possessions so your car analogy doesn't hold up.

Most advanced states will also intervene on an individual basis if they see a parent is not providing a child with a minimum level of care for eg. vaccinations.

Should sex education be taught by the state? This all comes down to opinion really.

Let's face it not all parents are of the same ability or talent. My opinion is that a standard set on sex education is probably on whole a good thing, the same way a standard is set on a minimum level of reading and arithmetic.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

IMO, provision of factual information is NEVER an infringement of rights. Then again, I'm a librarian. Provision of information is my job, and one of my passions.

I can't disagree with you. Parents often object to the teaching of evolution, but evolution is a fact, and it's taught regardless in public schools. I have no objection to this.

I also have no objection to the teaching of human biology. That's science, that's fact, and that's commonly taught in public schools whether parents like it or not.

However, "Sex Ed" falls under a different umbrella. It teaches a variety of things about which there is a great deal of contention among citizens. Examples include sexual orientation, experimentation, how to avoid unwanted pregnancy, enjoyment, and so on. These are not just facts about how a sperm meets and egg through sexual intercourse; these are a set of beliefs that some parents, some school districts, don't want to be taught, or they disagree strongly about how they should be taught, or they believe strongly that only parents should be teaching these things.

Not only is Sex Ed different that Biology in terms of what is taught, but it is also different in terms of desired outcome. Biology teaches children how humans reproduce; it's mechanical. Sex Ed teaches them about behavior.

Many parents do not want public schools teaching behavior. Do they have that right or not?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Let's face it not all parents are of the same ability or talent. My opinion is that a standard set on sex education is probably on whole a good thing, the same way a standard is set on a minimum level of reading and arithmetic.

I accept that's your opinion. However, I want to make it clear what you're saying. The basis of your opinion is "if the parents can't or won't do it, the state must." My own opinion is that the former does not predicate the latter. In my opinion, this gives rise to a nanny state at best, and a dictatorship at worst.

Historically, free societies do not lose their rights all at once, and dictators don't appear from outside of the society. Free societies destroy themselves from within, and they do so by dismantling their own freedoms by popular acclaim, one by one, year by year, until they wake up one day and realize they are no longer free.

One can ridicule small things like this as leading to dictatorship. But some houses are built of bricks. Each individual brick is very small and unlikely to lead to a house on its own. Stack them up and you get an edifice.

 

[Ramirez]

I accept that's your opinion. However, I want to make it clear what you're saying. The basis of your opinion is "if the parents can't or won't do it, the state must." My own opinion is that the former does not predicate the latter. In my opinion, this gives rise to a nanny state at best, and a dictatorship at worst.

Historically, free societies do not lose their rights all at once, and dictators don't appear from outside of the society. Free societies destroy themselves from within, and they do so by dismantling their own freedoms by popular acclaim, one by one, year by year, until they wake up one day and realize they are no longer free.

One can ridicule small things like this as leading to dictatorship. But some houses are built of bricks. Each individual brick is very small and unlikely to lead to a house on its own. Stack them up and you get an edifice.

Bill, this is just information, the same way that many other skills are taught. I am talking just about teaching the mechanics of birth control, not about the morality of having sex.

I don't see how this is much different than teaching algebra , so how does teaching algebra lead to a nanny state?

In fact education is the best defence against a nanny state, why else did totalitarian states first censure the educated classes? Why did the USSR try to silence the various intellectuals that criticized it?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, this is just information, the same way that many other skills are taught. I am talking just about teaching the mechanics of birth control, not about the morality of having sex.

That's not what Sex Ed courses teach.

I don't see how this is much different than teaching algebra , so how does teaching algebra lead to a nanny state?

It wouldn't be, if all it taught was biology.

In fact education is the best defence against a nanny state, why else did totalitarian states first censure the educated classes? Why did the USSR try to silence the various intellectuals that criticized it?

Education is an excellent preventative. Indoctrination is not. The USSR indoctrinated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701123.html

In Seattle public schools, sexual orientation is taught in ninth-grade health class, a one-day session that uses vignettes about fictitious teens to illustrate same-sex and opposite-sex attraction. But the topic can arise as early as grade 5, in discussions on the many changes that accompany puberty.
...
At the same time, school systems in politically liberal communities are expanding the lexicon of sex and gender identity in health classes. Homosexuality is one of many topics covered under the umbrella of "comprehensive" sex education, which teaches students how to be comfortable with their sexuality and safe in sexual practice.

Is that about how to avoid becoming pregnant?

All of these issues fall under the purview of 'Sex Ed'. Only a very few of them are pure science and devoid of personal morals and belief systems. Biology classes easily cover the former.

Education is great. Mandated education about preferred behavior is not education as such, it is behavior-modification in order to obtain a desired social outcome. That's called indoctrination.

Freedom is not something the government teaches to children over the objection of their parents. You talk about the USSR and repressive regimes, that's it right there.

 

[MJS]

Yes, my suggestion is that parents step up, or we suffer the consequences. This is basic to freedom. It is not acceptable (to me) to argue that because parents won't, the government must. There is a third option; it's called failing. Freedom means freedom to suck too.

Bill, you keep going back to freedom. I think its safe to say I've said parents are free to do as they wish. As long as they're willing to accept the fact that their child may be a mom or dad alot sooner than they planned, and the parents will become grandparents sooner than they planned.

I'll go back to other things that're taught, such as history, math, science, etc. What if the parents didn't like the way history was taught in school? Fact is, there is little they can do to control whats taught, with the exception of home schooling. Even in a private school, its possible there may be things the parents dont like.

I dont believe I've ever said the school should be the sole source. I simply said that no matter who teaches it to the kids, someone should, as its something that could have a devastating effect on the kids life.

See my note about 'reasonable'. You don't see anything wrong with it. Many parents do. Their opinions don't matter?

See above. I think this is the way you are reading into it.

Yes, they would. And many parents think that teaching them about it is the same as encouraging them to do it, especially when accompanied by making free birth control and STD prevention available.

And some argue that it is far worse than teaching abstinence.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/abstinence.study/index.html

And what the closet dwellers fail to see, is that at some point in the kids life, they will do it. As I said, imagine this....parents raise their little princess to remain a virgin until she gets married. Fine, I have no issue with that. The Princess is marrying a wonderful Prince, who is also a virgin. Again, I am perfectly ok with this. Wedding night comes, and they decide to celebrate and have sex for the very first time. But, due to their lifestyle, ie: jobs, they like to go out and party 4 nights a week, etc., they dont want kids right now. Neither the princess or prince, know anything about bc because mom and dad were too proud to teach them. Now what?

And for what its worth, I had the birds and the bees chat with my mom. I had the chat about drinking and driving, drugs, the effects this stuff can have on not only the person ingesting it, but on the family, God forbid I drink/drive and get killed. I thank God every day for the way my mother raised me. She wasn't so closed minded to think that her son would never have sex before marriage or heaven forbid drink at a party. I'm still alive today Bill. No STDs, no little babies, no DUIs, yet I still went to a party, still hung with my friends, still had sex. Its a shame more people dont see the value in educating their kids.

Again, that's what you see as reasonable. If we were sitting around having a beer, I might well agree with you, that sounds pretty reasonable. But other parents disagree and they have the right to disagree. They also have the right, via the local school boards, to set standards based on local values. You are sidestepping my comments with regard to that. Do they have the right to set those local standards based on local values or not?



I didn't say the state has no right to dictate anything that is taught. The basics are well-recognized and required. This is our nod to a common public school education, and it establishes basic learning standards. These are testable and include things like reading, writing, civics, history, and so on. These basics are also the purview of the individual states, and local school boards set curricula. Many do not teach sex education because they do not want to.



I could not agree more with the above statements. We're in perfect agreement that if the school does not provide Sex Ed training, the parents should. Absolutely. When the parents fail in this basic duty, they really do harm to their children and to society through the costs that we will all have to absorb.

I just happen to be resistant to calls for government to intervene whenever 'something must be done' and no one is doing it. The government's duties do not include providing moral guidance to children regarding sex (and I do not believe that the moral aspect can be separated from the biological aspect). I agree that something must be done. I do not agree that the government must do it. Failing is an option in a free society.

And again Bill, you harp and misread what I say. Again...never said parents dont or shouldnt have rights. I think I've made my views clear, so I'm not rehashing again. If you can't or refuse to follow what I'm saying, I dont know what to tell ya.

 

[Ramirez]

That's not what Sex Ed courses teach.



It wouldn't be, if all it taught was biology.



Education is an excellent preventative. Indoctrination is not. The USSR indoctrinated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701123.html



Is that about how to avoid becoming pregnant?

All of these issues fall under the purview of 'Sex Ed'. Only a very few of them are pure science and devoid of personal morals and belief systems. Biology classes easily cover the former.

Education is great. Mandated education about preferred behavior is not education as such, it is behavior-modification in order to obtain a desired social outcome. That's called indoctrination.

Freedom is not something the government teaches to children over the objection of their parents. You talk about the USSR and repressive regimes, that's it right there.

Well I can only tell you about my education in Canada, it was all about birth control, how to use a condom is not indoctrination, it is information.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I dont believe I've ever said the school should be the sole source. I simply said that no matter who teaches it to the kids, someone should, as its something that could have a devastating effect on the kids life.

Should or must? That's the point of contention. I absolutely agree that it should be taught to children. I only stop at the point of saying that if the parents won't, the state must.

And what the closet dwellers fail to see, is that at some point in the kids life, they will do it. As I said, imagine this....parents raise their little princess to remain a virgin until she gets married. Fine, I have no issue with that. The Princess is marrying a wonderful Prince, who is also a virgin. Again, I am perfectly ok with this. Wedding night comes, and they decide to celebrate and have sex for the very first time. But, due to their lifestyle, ie: jobs, they like to go out and party 4 nights a week, etc., they dont want kids right now. Neither the princess or prince, know anything about bc because mom and dad were too proud to teach them. Now what?

Now they suffer for their lack of knowledge. At what point is this the responsibility of the state to provide for their lack of knowledge? I say never.

What you are repeating is that there are negative consequences for children not knowing about sex, birth control, and disease prevention. I absolutely agree. But you go further; you use that as a reason that the state should intervene. I disagree.

And for what its worth, I had the birds and the bees chat with my mom. I had the chat about drinking and driving, drugs, the effects this stuff can have on not only the person ingesting it, but on the family, God forbid I drink/drive and get killed. I thank God every day for the way my mother raised me. She wasn't so closed minded to think that her son would never have sex before marriage or heaven forbid drink at a party. I'm still alive today Bill. No STDs, no little babies, no DUIs, yet I still went to a party, still hung with my friends, still had sex. Its a shame more people dont see the value in educating their kids.

It is a shame. It's not the job of the state to do what parents don't.

And again Bill, you harp and misread what I say. Again...never said parents dont or shouldnt have rights. I think I've made my views clear, so I'm not rehashing again. If you can't or refuse to follow what I'm saying, I dont know what to tell ya.

I understand what you're saying perfectly. If parents don't teach their children, the children suffer, as does society. I get it. I agree.

I only disagree on what comes next. I do not agree that the state therefore has the right to intercede.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well I can only tell you about my education in Canada, it was all about birth control, how to use a condom is not indoctrination, it is information.

I'm glad things were different in Canada when you went to school. Apparently, things are changing:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...icit-sex-education-in-schools/article1540642/

Ontario to introduce more explicit sex education in schools


Kate Hammer and Karen Howlett
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Apr. 20, 2010 12:32PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Apr. 21, 2010 2:49PM EDT
The revision, outlined in 208 pages that were quietly posted on the Ministry of Education’s website in January, will for the first time teach Grade 3 pupils about such topics as sexual identity and orientation, and introduce terms like “anal intercourse” and “vaginal lubrication” to children in Grades 6 and 7. The new curriculum begins in Grade 1 with lessons about the proper names of body parts.

Indoctrination or education? I'm going to go with indoctrination here.

 

[MJS]

Should or must? That's the point of contention. I absolutely agree that it should be taught to children. I only stop at the point of saying that if the parents won't, the state must.

Should. Someone should teach it. Parents, the school system, a doctor, someone from a church, a planned parent-hood worker. I dont give a **** who does it, but yes, someone should teach it. I stand by that, and if you disagree, thats fine.

Now they suffer for their lack of knowledge. At what point is this the responsibility of the state to provide for their lack of knowledge? I say never.

What you are repeating is that there are negative consequences for children not knowing about sex, birth control, and disease prevention. I absolutely agree. But you go further; you use that as a reason that the state should intervene. I disagree.

see above.

It is a shame. It's not the job of the state to do what parents don't.

See above.

I understand what you're saying perfectly. If parents don't teach their children, the children suffer, as does society. I get it. I agree.

*Climbs back into my chair after falling over* OMG, we're making progress...we agreed on something!!!

I only disagree on what comes next. I do not agree that the state therefore has the right to intercede.

See my first comment.

 

[Ramirez]

I'm glad things were different in Canada when you went to school. Apparently, things are changing:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...icit-sex-education-in-schools/article1540642/



Indoctrination or education? I'm going to go with indoctrination here.

McGuinty backed down on this a while ago.