**Human sickness is so severe that few can bear to look at it, but those who do become well..**
Posted 10 September 2008 - 05:49 PM
My gosh..that's crazy to have sex ed at that age.. The McCain campaign are out for blood and in this case even though I'm not voting for either of them--McCain seems more plausible. I nevery come across any of their campaign ads on tv--thankfully.
"-*This world is not conclusion; A sequel stands beyond, Invisible as music, But positive, as sound.-*"
“Physical strength is measured by what we can carry, Spiritual by what we can bear..”
My gosh..that's crazy to have sex ed at that age..
Yes, it is. It's also untrue.
See Startraveler's post:
Startraveler on Sep 10 2008, 01:25 PM, said:
Unless I'm mistaken, the only thing the bill in question had with regard to children was anti-pedophilia provisions to make kids aware of what constitutes inappropriate touching. At no point would children be taught anything about sex.
Liberals didn't make a mess out of education, No Child Left Behind did that.
And liberals don't turn out students who don't understand the theory of evolution. But conservatives do.
Your spin ain't going to work, No child left behind is there to fix the Libs mess and you are trying your best to discredit it for you want the control of education still. And the reason for that is it is a very good tax INCREASE promo when you say "FOR THE CHILDREN OR FOR EDUCATION". Year after year the same pitch! We need more money for education, while other countries spend a lot less for education and are far better.
As to the idea of teaching children about inappropriate touching in school, I think that is a great idea. The belief that this sort of teaching should be carried out at home falls by the wayside in cases where the pedophile is part of the family. I have done volunteer work with abused children for a decade. Children are groomed from an early age by predators to think what is happening to them is normal. I am not making these comments out of support for Obama, I am making them because this is a good idea. Labeling ideas because of its origin does not solve anything.
I'm quoting this, because out of everyone's opinions on this subject I've read, this is the one that is coming from real-life experiences, not second-hand opinions. I agree that teaching young children about inappropriate touching is a good idea. Very, very true that a lot of the time the family member IS the one doing the touching, and is therefore NOT going to teach the child that it's inappropriate! Who else will tell them then?? Even for those families who have already taught their children about this, it will just be reinforcement of what the parents are saying, which is never a bad thing. Look at the idea FIRST, before making a judgement on it by who's saying it.
"If you can't handle me at my worst, than you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best." - Marilyn Monroe
The Path I have taken is a lonely one but that is something I must endure.
Posted 10 September 2008 - 10:04 PM
There are really some things that shouldn't be taught by teachers. I just noticed that ever since SexEd started to be taught to kids, teen pregnancy started booming. Well, if I was taught about something really fun which you can be good at that doesn't cost that much, and there are kids like me who also are curious and wants to play, then hell I'd go right ahead and do it. But I don't cause I'm to irresponsible to take care of someone that important to me. I hope they understand that they shouldn't rush things.
It's really simple. Libs, don't teach my kids how to have *spam filter* *insert stuff here* "just in case they want to experiment", and I won't teach your kids eight ways to kill a man with a pencil and build a gun from spare parts around teh house "just in case they want to experiment. Fair enough?
First off, I find it chilling and quite telling that you equate a certain sex act as being on equal footing with building weapons.
Second, liberals dont' want to teach your kids how to do those things. But we do want to teach biological processes in biology class. Just because you have an irrational stick up your butt about it doesn't mean that children of an appropriate age should not be taught the realities of life. Should we also not teach, say, cell division? Do you have something against that as well?
Third, we dont' want to teach your kids to be gay. But when they reach the age where they are developing their sexuality, they should be made aware of what homosexuality is. Why? Because it's a part of biology. They should not be taught that it is right, and they should not be taught that it is wrong. They should just be made aware.
Fourth, I think you are lying when you imply that gay kids are allowed PDA in your kids school, but straight couples are not. I think you embellished to make a point.
I just noticed that ever since SexEd started to be taught to kids, teen pregnancy started booming.
No, you didn't notice this. You were told by the likes that produced that McCain commercial. And it is as untrue as the commercial.
Well, if I was taught about something really fun which you can be good at that doesn't cost that much, and there are kids like me who also are curious and wants to play, then hell I'd go right ahead and do it.
Now that statment is just plain dumb. As if kids are sitting around with no ideas or urges to have sex, but then a teacher tells them about it, and so then they are going to start thinking about it. I suspect you are either so old you don't remember being a teenager, or you have some sort of malfunctioning libido. Kids have always, and will always, "find out" about sex on their own, and want to have it on their own. If you were to home school a child and keep them away from all outside influence, the second they get outside and see their first opposite sex peer, they will want to have sex. The reason you and I are alive today to have this debate is because our ancestors liked sex, wanted to have sex.
Your statement makes it sound as if Johnny and Jane are sitting around thinking "hm, I'm bored. What do you want to do?" Jane: "gee, I don't know. How about we go to the movies?" Johnny: "Well, I don't have any money. But did you hear what the teacher was talking about today? The teacher told our class all about sex." Jane: "Sex? Well, what is it? Does it cost anything?" Johnny: "No, it's for free! Take your clothes off and I'll show you what we learned today!" Jane: "OK, it sounds like fun! Thank goodness teacher taught you about sex today, or we wouldn't have anything else to do! We NEVER would have thought about this ourselves! Thanks Teach!"
If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.
Posted 10 September 2008 - 10:34 PM
Extreme libs want masturbation, homosexuality, *spam filter*, oral sex taught in school.
Where in the helll did you get an idea like that? Explain, exactly, how do you mean we want it taught? Do you suppose we want schematics printed up with step-by-step instructions how to do these things? Or do you mean we want ACCEPTANCE taught?
Extreme cons want God and abstinence taught in schools.
There is nothing wrong with presenting another theory beside evolution.
I had to explain the other day, that NO, it was not OK for the gay couple to make-out in the hallway. When confronted with the WHY NOT! that was inevitable, I asked if straight couples got in trouble for making out in the hallway. Insert moment of thoughtful silence, and the room suddenly getting brighter as the light bulb lit up over his head.
If straight couples aren't allowed to do it - then fine. But if straight couples are looked over, then the school should be sued into obvlivion.
"There is not a Liberal America, a Conservative America, a Red America or Blue America, there is the United States of America." ~ Barack Obama