Marcus, your family is a "dirty word."

[Az]

Actually it does. Homosexuality is exactly when a person can only be romantically involved with a member of the same gender.

By definition, homosexuality isn't about love or romance. But that doesn't mean that many many gay people may develop such feelings.

[Ben Kenobi]

My BF came from a conservative background his parents didn't teach him anything about sex education, probably why most of his relatives have knocked up their girlfriends not even knowing what they were doing was sex. He was told that gay people were evil people, and that was it, the end of the explanation.

You are leaving too much up to the parents, unless you like ignorance to continue on through generations it is a bad idea.

Thorn:

Don't presume I come from a conservative background. My mom's a nursing instructor so she will be pleased to hear that you think she will not do a good job teaching sex education.

Again, most teachers are not qualified to do sex education, so why rely on them to teach what they do not know?

I would rather let the parents decide how much, and when rather than the schools. If they want to keep their kids ignorant, then they will have to pay the price later on. What cost is it to the schools if the kids remain ignorant?

One of the most popular classess in my university is a sex education class. Now, if schools were doing a good job of teaching kids, why would they feel the need to be educated here? The fact is that the kids are still ignorant after their supposed sex education.

[Ben Kenobi]

By definition, homosexuality isn't about love or romance.

It's all about getting your wang up and finishing, eh? That's all it takes to be gay?

[General Ludd]

Why are you griping about the school not being a good enviornment for sex educationg at the same time that you're griping about how kids shouldn't be allowed to talk about sex in school?

[Ben Kenobi]

Sex education is much more than classroom talk about who's doing what. Schools cannot provide proper sex education.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sex education is much more than classroom talk about who's doing what. Schools cannot provide proper sex education.

Of course they can't when they treat it like a horrible taboo that can't be talked about!

[Kuciwalker]

Again, BK, given that it would be EQUALLY WRONG for children to say in their family their dad likes their mom. The teacher wasn't saying anything - one student was talking to another. IT WASN'T EVEN SEX EDUCATION! How does "when a girl likes a girl" qualify as sex eduction?

[Ben Kenobi]

Osweld:

Even if they talk about sex they will not be able to provide proper sex education. The two are seperate issues, and I have indulged your earlier point to make my position clear.

Skywalker:

Again, BK, given that it would be EQUALLY WRONG for children to say in their family their dad likes their mom.

No. I would hope that his dad likes his mom. Both senses should apply. Bringing this back to the point at hand, Boris and Azazel both understand that the child does not fully understand, nor should he ought to fully understand what it means to be gay.

Now, I would have no problem with the child saying that he has two moms, and that they like each other, just as I would allow for a child to say that he has a mom and a dad and they both like each other.

Where I disagree is having to explain the term gay, and what it means to be gay, an explanation provoked by the use fo the word gay, in the example, " I have two gay moms."

Boris:

I disagree with how the teacher handled that situation, which is why I posted my own response rather than merely criticising.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Osweld:

Even if they talk about sex they will not be able to provide proper sex education. The two are seperate issues, and I have indulged your earlier point to make my position clear.

No, they are not seperate issues. On one hand you're saying that schools should encourage ignorance about sex, while on the other hand you accuse them of being unable to provide proper sex education. Well, no ****, of course people come out of school not knowing anything about sex if the school teaches them that it's a taboo which shouldn't be talked about.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thorn:

Don't presume I come from a conservative background. My mom's a nursing instructor so she will be pleased to hear that you think she will not do a good job teaching sex education.

Again, most teachers are not qualified to do sex education, so why rely on them to teach what they do not know?

I would rather let the parents decide how much, and when rather than the schools. If they want to keep their kids ignorant, then they will have to pay the price later on. What cost is it to the schools if the kids remain ignorant?

One of the most popular classess in my university is a sex education class. Now, if schools were doing a good job of teaching kids, why would they feel the need to be educated here? The fact is that the kids are still ignorant after their supposed sex education.

Yeah well its not those damn parent that pay the price, it is society!! Welfare, prison, drugs all play into families that weren't intended to be created... and it goes on for generations. People beat their wives...children....

All I'm saying is that there would be LESS of this if there was manditory sex education...

Unless you think Jesus will solve everything... seems to be most conservatives response.

Look at Scandanavia, they have plenty of sex education. Are they the spawn of Satan? Have all their heathen bastard children bred a society filled with filth and sin?! I DON'T THINK SO.

Hell their population growth is so low they are encouraging people to have sex because they aren't doing it enough!

[DRoseDARs]

Boris, the official wanted it to look like the child was being a disruption inside classtime when in fact it happened at recess where no child is paying attention to any teacher anyway, hence no disruption of classroom instruction. The official wanted to create the impression of Marcus causing a problem where none existed. I don't have access to the full article, so perhaps I'm missing the part of the article where s/he points out the fact this happened during recess, not during instruction, hence didn't disrupt anything...'cept maybe getting Ms. Sticks-Her-Nose-Into-Other-People's-Business' knickers in a bunch. If no such distinction is made by the author, slanting the article towards the position of the school, then it is bad journalism because the readers will only get the official's opinion on the matter (being that s/he wasn't any near the "incident"). This child was questionably punished, and the official as to be expected is trying to cover his ass. The journalist shouldn't be helping him.

Besides, many of the major media outlets these days seem to be cheerleading, often for the wrong teams, when they should just be broadcasting the game without any inane comments.

(Sorry for sounding like a broken record in this post, but I'm bouncing between this post, other threads, and other sites. Plus I'm eating. Not too worried 'bout the grammar. )

[Ben Kenobi]

On one hand you're saying that schools should encourage ignorance about sex, while on the other hand you accuse them of being unable to provide proper sex education.

I argue that even given copious amounts of time, the schools are not properly educating kids about sex education. Therefore, I argue that schools are not the place for sex education.

Secondly, I fail to see why this approach encourages ignorance about sex? Could I not say, as a teacher, go talk to your parents? How is this encouraging ignorance?

[Ben Kenobi]

All I'm saying is that there would be LESS of this if there was manditory sex education...

Thorn, do you expect mandatory sex education to be the cure all for all of societies woes? Many of the problems you cite have little or nothing to do with sex education.

As for whether sex education ought to be mandatory, you must first prove that the current curricula is reducing the amount of stds and premarital sex.

Secondly, even with the best curriculum in the world, these children are still minors who have parents. No student is required to take any portion of their curriculum, in that they can attend a private school at their own expense, if this is the route they choose. Why should parents be prevented from opting their child out if they feel the sex education is of very poor quality, inappropriate for the age, or directly contradictory to religious beliefs?

Again, I would argue that schools are poor venues because the teachers are not properly trained in the medical aspects of sex education.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I argue that even given copious amounts of time, the schools are not properly educating kids about sex education. Therefore, I argue that schools are not the place for sex education.

Secondly, I fail to see why this approach encourages ignorance about sex? Could I not say, as a teacher, go talk to your parents? How is this encouraging ignorance?

Because you're telling them not to talk about it. Even if you tell them to ask their parents, that's basically saying "ew, gross. don't talk about that here, it isn't proper.... why not ask your mommy?"

Proper schooling isn't about pounding facts into children's minds, it is about creating a healthy environment where they feel comfortable and able to explore, or ask, everything. If schools stoped treating sex as taboo, they might be able to start teaching it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Boris, the official wanted it to look like the child was being a disruption inside classtime when in fact it happened at recess where no child is paying attention to any teacher anyway, hence no disruption of classroom instruction. The official wanted to create the impression of Marcus causing a problem where none existed. I don't have access to the full article, so perhaps I'm missing the part of the article where s/he points out the fact this happened during recess, not during instruction, hence didn't disrupt anything...'cept maybe getting Ms. Sticks-Her-Nose-Into-Other-People's-Business' knickers in a bunch. If no such distinction is made by the author, slanting the article towards the position of the school, then it is bad journalism because the readers will only get the official's opinion on the matter (being that s/he wasn't any near the "incident"). This child was questionably punished, and the official as to be expected is trying to cover his ass. The journalist shouldn't be helping him.

First, it's right that all you saw was a snippet of the article, not the whole thing. How do you know the NY Times article didn't present the other versions and opinions involved? Hint: it did. I read the NY Times daily, so I know these things. And I can attest that they gave MUCH more coverage to the views of the mother and outraged ACLU people than the school officials.

Now, this was likely because the school officials were all tight-lipped. But it IS good journalism to seek out all sides of a story and present them. That's why they included the quote.

So I don't think accusations of bad journalism have any merit. I certainly don't see the NYT as deserving an "OH, there they go again!" response wrt bad journalism--I doubt you could find an American newspaper with all-round better quality journalism (warts and all).