Keep It In Your Pants Until You're Married

[Gunny]

"school choice" is a way to divest public education of funding and put it into parochial school education. and, i'm afraid I have to disagree about parents focusing on abstinence only. If they want to do that, the're free to send their kids to parochial school. there's no excuse for a public school not giving kids the information they need.

The information they need is that they have no business engaging in sexual activity until they are old enough, mature enough, and financially sound enough to raise children.

If parents whish to not have their children provided instructions on how to engage in sexual activity, I believe that is their right. There is no excuse for you deciding for them what their children need to know.

 

[pegwinn]

Not true. Because the religious right doesn't care about the quality of schools. They only care if creationism is being taught as science and that their kids get taught abstinence only and get to pray in school. I don't know if you have kids, but to me, living in a city where not all schools are created equal, also a city where approximately 68% of the population is Catholic, that's a big issue.

No. I don't think it's unfair at all for the reasons expressed above. We're not in the business of funding religious institutions. Doing it via vouchers is just a back door means of getting around the Constitution.

I understand where you are on this. But I can tell you that I'd fight any attempt to implement school vouchers vigorously.

Jill, jill....... your first paragraph is just as anti-(fill in the blank) stereotyping as any rabid right wing attack dog. If I posted the same things about "liberals" I am sure you would agree.

Vouchers is not a back door around the Constitution. But, for the sake of argument I would love to hear your rationale on it. I will go even go first.

The Constitution does not authorize the existance of the Department of Education. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law...". If a state wishes to do vouchers, the only thing slowing them down is a loss of potential federal funding.... which should not be happening anyway.

A true voucher system will allow the taxpayer to choose where his or her taxes are spent. If I am not using the public school system (I currently am BTW) WHY SHOULD I personally fund it? A voucher allows me to take my money that would go for XXX dollars in taxes, and place it at the school of my choice.

Batter Up.

 

[Gunny]

Jill, jill....... your first paragraph is just as anti-(fill in the blank) stereotyping as any rabid right wing attack dog. If I posted the same things about "liberals" I am sure you would agree.

Vouchers is not a back door around the Constitution. But, for the sake of argument I would love to hear your rationale on it. I will go even go first.

The Constitution does not authorize the existance of the Department of Education. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law...". If a state wishes to do vouchers, the only thing slowing them down is a loss of potential federal funding.... which should not be happening anyway.

A true voucher system will allow the taxpayer to choose where his or her taxes are spent. If I am not using the public school system (I currently am BTW) WHY SHOULD I personally fund it? A voucher allows me to take my money that would go for XXX dollars in taxes, and place it at the school of my choice.

Batter Up.

Since I no longer have kids in school, I'd like to place that voucher in my bank account.

 

[pegwinn]

Since I no longer have kids in school, I'd like to place that voucher in my bank account.

Actually I would as well.

But, since my neighbor kids have to go to the schools I would like to help make them better. I support the idea of public schools in that the local public takes responsibility for makeing a great school. The fed just gets in the way.

 

[Diuretic]

You are arguing what what you presume people are going to do. That in no way changes the fact that abstinence is the most sound method of not contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

All I see you really saying is you are excusing a lack of self control as "human nature." Regardless your reasoning and/or its validity, you cannot deny the sumple fact that not engaging in sexual conduct GREATLY diminishes the chances of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

I'm simply pointing out the reality of human behaviour. I'm not judging it, merely saying, this is how it is.

 

[mattskramer]

Since I no longer have kids in school, I'd like to place that voucher in my bank account.

I don’t think that we can grandfather you in but that raises a good point. What about parents who don’t have kids. Should they be required to pay school tax?

 

[rayboyusmc]

My point of view is that it is a simple fact that not engaging in sexual activity decreases greatly the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease. That doesn't have a DAMNED thing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with logic and common sense.

If you read my statement, I am not talking about your point of view. I made a statement that some of those on the religious right think this have everything to do with religion. Abstinence is not a logical issue like you are stating it is a frigging moral belief they have that they want to force on others. That in my opinion is bullcrap and is why we need to separate church and state.

I will continue to support public schools wether I have kids or grandkids in them.

 

[mattskramer]

If you read my statement, I am not talking about your point of view. I made a statement that some of those on the religious right think this have everything to do with religion. Abstinence is not a logical issue like you are stating it is a frigging moral belief they have that they want to force on others. That in my opinion is bullcrap and is why we need to separate church and state.

I will continue to support public schools wether I have kids or grandkids in them.

We can educate children about the benefits of abstinence followed by the less safe benefits of “safe sex”. We can educate children about both without bringing religion into the discussion. Aren’t we in agreement on that?

 

[jillian]

We can educate children about the benefits of abstinence followed by the less safe benefits of “safe sex”. We can educate children about both without bringing religion into the discussion. Aren’t we in agreement on that?

That's nice in theory. But it isn't reality. The ONLY reason for teaching abstinence only is religion.

 

[mattskramer]

That's nice in theory. But it isn't reality. The ONLY reason for teaching abstinence only is religion.

It certainly is possible to teach abstinence without mentioning religion. I think that it is important to teach children about the benefits of abstinences. Sticking strictly with biology and health, isn’t the safest way to avoid contacting a sexually transmitted disease not to have sex – yes or no? Once it is clearly established that the surest defense against STD is abstinence, we can proceed to discuss other safe measures. I think that abstinence should be mentioned without necessarily mentioning religion at all.

No. The only reason for teaching abstinence is to give students a “comprehensive” sex education. Has that become a bad word for you? The only reason for teaching abstinence is so the students understand that the surest way to avoid contacting a STD is through practicing abstinence.

 

[jillian]

It certainly is possible to teach abstinence without mentioning religion. I think that it is important to teach children about the benefits of abstinences. Sticking strictly with biology and health, isn’t the safest way to avoid contacting a sexually transmitted disease not to have sex – yes or no? Once it is clearly established that the surest defense against STD is abstinence, we can proceed to discuss other safe measures. I think that abstinence should be mentioned without necessarily mentioning religion at all.

No. The only reason for teaching abstinence is to give students a “comprehensive” sex education. Has that become a bad word for you? The only reason for teaching abstinence is so the students understand that the surest way to avoid contacting a STD is through practicing abstinence.

First, I didn't say teaching ABSTINENCE was a problem. I said the only reason for teaching ABSTINENCE ONLY was religion. Abstinence is one aspect of proper education, but only one.

And they don't have to mention religion if they're teaching abstinence ONLY. It's part of the equation... again, because it's the only reason for teaching ONLY ABSTINENCE.

 

[mattskramer]

First, I didn't say teaching ABSTINENCE was a problem. I said the only reason for teaching ABSTINENCE ONLY was religion. Abstinence is one aspect of proper education, but only one.

And they don't have to mention religion if they're teaching abstinence ONLY. It's part of the equation... again, because it's the only reason for teaching ONLY ABSTINENCE.

Okay. I got it. I’m not aware of any school that teaches abstinence only, in a “sex education” class. That class would only consist of one sentence. “Don’t have sex until you are married and practice monogamy once married.” Class dismissed.

 

[jillian]

Okay. I got it. I’m not aware of any school that teaches abstinence only, in a “sex education” class. That class would only consist of one sentence. “Don’t have sex until you are married and practice monogamy once married.” Class dismissed.

I really hate having to find the same things over and over... should just bookmark the darned thing...

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm

 

[mattskramer]

I really hate having to find the same things over and over... should just bookmark the darned thing...

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm

Abstinence only programs are not necessarily limited to one sentence. The very website to which you directed me says that abstinence-only programs provide no information about contraception beyond failure rates. It all depends on where we draw the line on the continuum of sex education. Should 4 year-olds be instructed on how to put a condom on a cucumber? I don’t know of a program with such a curriculum but I think that you get my point. Don’t you think that there are extremes on both sides of the issue?

 

[Diuretic]

On abstinence teaching. Just turning it on its head for a moment. I might be going too far into this and distorting the discussion a bit but instead of "abstinence" ie "don't do this" what about teaching kids about appropriate sexual behaviour? Given that sexual behaviour is socially defined (outside of the obvious mechanics) perhaps that might be a more constructive way of dealing with the issue.

 

[Paulie]

On abstinence teaching. Just turning it on its head for a moment. I might be going too far into this and distorting the discussion a bit but instead of "abstinence" ie "don't do this" what about teaching kids about appropriate sexual behaviour? Given that sexual behaviour is socially defined (outside of the obvious mechanics) perhaps that might be a more constructive way of dealing with the issue.

Do you realize the kind of social transformation that has to happen to change sexuality around in this world, particularly the US?

First, corporate America would have to be willing to give up the "sex sells" mentality. I'm talking about everything from advertising, tv shows, movies, video games, clothing, daily news, you name it.

Sex is IN YOUR FACE nowadays. You can't escape it. It's on Cartoon Network and fucking DISNEY CHANNEL, for christ sake. It's embedded in everything we do, and everything we see.

It's easy to sit here and discuss what COULD be done, but WILL it?

 

[Diuretic]

Nah it's not that I want to change much, just taking a look at the abstinence teaching idea from a different angle.

Sex is in everything because it works. And since none of us can (and those of us who could, wouldn't) change the hyper-commercialisation of sex I think it's probably more useful to teach our children exactly what has happened and for them to be aware of it. But some parents need to know that too.

I recall here in Australia some months ago there was a bit of media kerfuffle about fashion sexualisation of children, particularly females, in that companies were offering inappropriate clothing for children. Just before I go on I need to make the point that our definition of childhood is different from generations before. You only have to look at portraits by Joshua Reynolds to see that in England in the 18th Century children were seen as small adults. But I digressed further than I should have.

About the clothing. Yes, little girls were being dressed in clothing inappropriate for a child. But, hello, someone was buying the clothes. It wasn't until someone brought it up that there was a collective realisation about what was really happening. Up until then the fashion meme had parents in its grip.

 

[Gunny]

If you read my statement, I am not talking about your point of view. I made a statement that some of those on the religious right think this have everything to do with religion. Abstinence is not a logical issue like you are stating it is a frigging moral belief they have that they want to force on others. That in my opinion is bullcrap and is why we need to separate church and state.

I will continue to support public schools wether I have kids or grandkids in them.

Don't know where you've been, but church and state ARE separate, by law. What you mean is you want to divorce people's religions from politics, and that's about as likely to happen as horny teenagers abstaining from engaging in sexual activity.

Where we are at odds is your extremism on the issue. Where is this "religious right" that has all this power you and those think like you so fear? And who are you to deny them their beliefs? You call yourself a liberal, but all I see out of you is intolerance to difference. And you're about as hateful going about it as anyone I've seen.

What makes YOUR beliefs any better than anyone else's? And what makes you any less guided politically by those beliefs than some harcore Baptist?

Nothing. You rail against them as vehemently as they rail against you. Nothing sets you apart from them from my vantage point.

"Abstinence" is a WORD. It has a definition. Abstinence in the context of sexual activity to preclude contracting STD's means not engaging in seuxal activity for that purpose. Nothing religious about it.

 

[Gunny]

That's nice in theory. But it isn't reality. The ONLY reason for teaching abstinence only is religion.

You are fearmongering. Teaching that abstinence for the purpose of not exposing oneself to STD is logically, and physically sound and has NOTHING to do with religion.

 

[Gunny]

I really hate having to find the same things over and over... should just bookmark the darned thing...

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm

How many pages deep did you have to go to find THAT? hardly the "omnipotent religious right" the fearmongering in this thread is portrays.

Is this link used at any public school to teach sex education?

What it boils down to is you would disallow religions their opinions on the topic. Not very liberal-minded of you.