Sex Ed For Kindergartners

[xCrimsonx]

I'm sorry but y'all are round the bend if you think Barack Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners--that any major candidate for elected office anywhere in this country would advocate such. Every child advocate in the country would be outraged.

"Well, gee, if a McCain ad claims he does, it must be true!!!"

They're just trying to distract you and y'all seem all too happy to oblige: pay no attention to the man behind the smear campaign! This from the guy who last week claimed to have "the utmost respect for Senator Obama." Really, really ugly, folks.

Now, please, repeat after me: reality ≠ a South Park episode. Reality ≠ a South Park episode. Reality ≠ a South Park episode. Feel better?

Thats cool dude. But I still think they all spend waaay to much money on campaining. That money could be feeding hungry homeless pplz.

The ads you see on TV show how easy It is for those in power to act like kids in a play ground, where ever the info came from. Thats what I was talking about ya'll.

Its not the polies behind the campainge Its the promises and such that are made that never seem to go though.

I totally loved that episode of Southpark. lol

[Raptor]

There is nothing wrong with presenting another theory beside evolution.

There is a problem if they're both being taught in a science class, as there are no scientific theories besides evolution.

[Caesar]

“Now keep in mind that we’ve been in this fight, Pam and I, back in Illinois when I was the chairman of the Health Care Committee, helped to push through legislation. And I remember Alan Keyes, I ran against Alan Keyes [laughter] I don’t know if you guys remember Alan Keyes. But I remember him using this in a, his campaign against me saying, [mimicking Alan Keyes] “Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergartners.” [Laughter] And, which I didn’t know what to tell him.

But it’s the right thing to do, you know, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools.” Obama

Source and full article

He did support this, he even said so

[Startraveler]

Stop lying. Just. Stop.

Mr. Obama voted for the bill in committee, where it passed, but it never came to a full and final vote. The proposal called for “age and developmentally appropriate” sex education and also allowed parents the option of withdrawing their children from such classroom instruction if they felt that it clashed with their beliefs or values.

In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators.

“I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” Mr. Obama said in 2004. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age.”

It is a misstatement of the bill’s purpose, therefore, to maintain, as the McCain campaign advertisement does, that Mr. Obama favored conventional sex education as a policy for 5-year-olds. Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.

The advertisement, then, also misrepresents what the bill meant by “comprehensive.” The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues.

In another part of the advertisement, Mr. McCain maintains that Mr. Obama’s sole achievement in education was the sex-education bill. In reality, Mr. Obama not only helped administer a $49 million education project in Chicago in the 1990s, but also sponsored or co-sponsored measures that increased the number of charter schools in Illinois, and expanded federal grants to summer school programs and to historically black colleges.

[Caesar]

Who Obama?

[IrishAidan07]

There is a problem if they're both being taught in a science class, as there are no scientific theories besides evolution.

Creationism does have meager evidence supporting it, but not nearly as much as evolution. I know that after I did some research on creationism, I was p***ed that we were not told about it in high school biology. And if not in a science class, then make it an elective. So long as it is not specific to any one religion, and creationism by itself is not, I don't see a problem with it.

And the above coming from someone who is extremely critical of religion.

Edited September 11, 2008 by IrishAidan

[ifisurvive]

Creationism does have meager evidence supporting it, but not nearly as much as evolution. I know that after I did some research on creationism, I was p***ed that we were not told about it in high school biology. And if not in a science class, then make it an elective. So long as it is not specific to any one religion, and creationism by itself is not, I don't see a problem with it.

I'm unsure what evidence you think Creationism has as everything I've ever seen in support ultimately comes down to "evolution can't quite explain this [though often there is an explaination] therefore God an Intelligent Designer kapowed it into existance". Science is all about evidence, predicting outcomes based on your theories and testing; ID offers no evidence other than arguing holes in another theory, predicts nothing and offers nothing to test. It's not science. If people want to believe in Creationism then it's their right to do so, but in the same way French verbs or violin lessons shouldn't be taught in a science class neither should religion. Perhaps because in the UK we actually have Religious Eduction in schools we're not getting ID pushed on us a science like it seem to be in the US.

As a seperate question, why would you want something with 'meager' evidence being taught in schools, period? If someone came up with a an idea which offered an alternative to gravity or thermodynamics or the reaction methods of organic chemicals, based on little argument and which pretty much everyone who worked in the relevant fields discarded would you also want those taught in schools?

Although I can understand parents not wanting intimate details of sex being taught to their children, certainly basic reproduction is something that needs to be taught. I find it ironic that it's often the same people who object to any kind of sex eduction being taught at school who argue that Intelligent Design should be taught at school. Biology is something that shouldn't be taught at schools and should be the parents responsibility; but religion should be taught at school and shouldn't be the parent's responsibility?

[IrishAidan07]

The meager evidence I speak of has a lot to do with the holes in the theory of evolution, but that's not all. I actually thought creationism was a bunch of malarkey until one morning when a Jehovah Witness was whack-whacking on my door. She said hello and asked if she could come in and read the Bible. I told her it wasn't a good time, so she left a little magazine instead; it was all about creationism. Some of the things in the magazine were pretty neat. Obviously it offered no conclusive evidence, but it did show certain things and explained certain things that evolution could not. Again, there was no conclusive evidence, but it was neat nonetheless.

There are many things taught in schools that are simply theories. Much of psychology rests on theory rather than fact, especially when your studies take you into Freudian psychology. And I never said creationism should be taught as a science course, but it should be taught nonetheless. If nothing else, it should be an elective. Creationism by itself is not religion specific. It has nothing to do with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any other religion. If people are concerned about children leaving school as well-rounded adults, then what's the problem with giving them another possible explanation? Evolution has many, many holes, yet it is still taught, as it should be, as though it happened without doubt. I am only 22, so I took Biology in high school not so long ago. They didn't tell us any of the holes in evolution. They presented it as fact - period, end of story.

And I'm all for kindergartners being taught sex education - within reason. I'm a huge liberal, extremely critical of religion. Read all of my posts before drawing a conclusion, please. I hate someone even having a slight notion I am a conservative.

Edited September 11, 2008 by IrishAidan

[Neognosis]

I never said creationism should be taught as a science course, but it should be taught nonetheless.

I agree. It should be taught in a social studies or humanities class, simply for the fact that so many people believe in it. But in no way should it be presented as a scientific theory, as it is not one.

[eqgumby]

Lets teach OUR children what WE as RESPONSIBLE parents, feel they should be taught, AT HOME.

So how'd that work out for Sarah Palin?

Cute, but what makes you think she somehow got pregnant due to a lack of sexual education from the state or Federal government? Do you honestly believe she didn't know what sex would do, or that teh Federal government could have saved her from this predicament?

[ifisurvive]

The meager evidence I speak of has a lot to do with the holes in the theory of evolution, but that's not all. I actually thought creationism was a bunch of malarkey until one morning when a Jehovah Witness was whack-whacking on my door. She said hello and asked if she could come in and read the Bible. I told her it wasn't a good time, so she left a little magazine instead; it was all about creationism. Some of the things in the magazine were pretty neat. Obviously it offered no conclusive evidence, but it did show certain things and explained certain things that evolution could not. Again, there was no conclusive evidence, but it was neat nonetheless.

Just because something in a leaflet sounds convincing does not make it right. I have seen many stories where 'x' cannot be explained by evolution when in fact in can be. Sure, there are some things that currently cannot but that does not mean that they never will. ID is basically 'evolution cannot explain x, God did it'. What happens if evolution figures an explanation for x? ID will then say 'what about y, God did it'? Evolution then explains y, ID asks 'what about z, God did it' and on and on... That is not a theory, it is a lack of a theory - it is a 'god of the gaps' argument that offers no real answers but an invitation to faith.

There are many things taught in schools that are simply theories. Much of psychology rests on theory rather than fact, especially when your studies take you into Freudian psychology. And I never said creationism should be taught as a science course, but it should be taught nonetheless. If nothing else, it should be an elective. Creationism by itself is not religion specific. It has nothing to do with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any other religion. If people are concerned about children leaving school as well-rounded adults, then what's the problem with giving them another possible explanation? Evolution has many, many holes, yet it is still taught, as it should be, as though it happened without doubt. I am only 22, so I took Biology in high school not so long ago. They didn't tell us any of the holes in evolution. They presented it as fact - period, end of story.

When you get deep into most scientific subjects there are holes, things that cannot be explained (yet) - that is why science is an ongoing endeavour. There are plenty of things in science taught just as much as fact in high school when there is ongoing research or when the full answer is much more complicated - evolution is by no means unique to this. High school is there to teach a good understanding of things; details and specialist information needs to be picked up in higher education. If we had to mention all the little flaws and unknowns or discuss the 'fuller' explanation (in physics, chemistry as well as all fields of biology) high school would be ten times as long and infinitely more confusing.

It's often made out that evolution and ID are 'both just theories' so there's no harm to teach both. But that implies there's some 50/50 split in thought. The reality is that pretty much everyone who knows what they are talking about in biology accepts evolution and it's only those who want religion to be in US schools who are pushing ID as a 'valid' alternative.

As I touched on in my previous post, how would you feel if Muslim fundamentalists pointed out flaws in the theory of gravity, came up with a religious-based alternative that was unprovable and scientifically unsupported but sounded good. Should that then be taught in school as well - treated as an perfectly acceptable alternative?

And I'm all for kindergartners being taught sex education - within reason. I'm a huge liberal, extremely critical of religion. Read all of my posts before drawing a conclusion, please. I hate someone even having a slight notion I am a conservative.

I saw your comment on being critical of religion - my last paragraph was a general comment and not directed at you. Sorry, meant to say that but forgot it in editing!

[eqgumby]

First off, I find it chilling and quite telling that you equate a certain sex act as being on equal footing with building weapons.

Whoa there tiger. It's illustrating a point, and my spam-filter stuff was clean but extreme sexually. Please don't judge, as you have no right to do so.

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?

Again, whoa there tiger. Nothing up my butt, thanks. That's pretty un-called for, and may I say, pretty telling as well as chilling. I have no problems with cell division and biology. However, there is no need to teach my children about the act of sex or any alternatives, be it m********ion, celibacy, or anything else. I'll handle that, because I am a big boy, and not afraid to discuss that with my kids.

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.

You're right they should be. I'll do that too. I have already, thanks. Because that's what responsible parents do. It's not the governments job.

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.

You misunderstood. The conversation was, gay kids were told to stop. SOME kids said it wasn't fair to stop the kids. The kids were reminded it applied to ALL kids, and was NOT about sexual preference, but proper behavior while IN THE SCHOOL. Calling me a liar was also un-called for.

*snip*

[+Sherapy]

There is a problem if they're both being taught in a science class, as there are no scientific theories besides evolution.

exactly creationism is one step above the tooth fairy...IMO.....

[+Sherapy]

Lets teach OUR children what WE as RESPONSIBLE parents, feel they should be taught, AT HOME.

So how'd that work out for Sarah Palin?

this speaks the loudest IMO.....the effects of the beliefs speak for themselves....as a responsible parent I would not use a value system that doesn't' teach the values I'd want my children to have ....for me .its sort of imperative i can discern the difference eeks....

In many ways the social moray of the 'family values' philosophy is not effect in application IMO ... I observe this all over the place its not new news......

Just like the earth is no longer flat so the idealogy that it is no longer serves us.....

the only change that I see in the McCain campaign is they choose a woman and for this party i can see this being monumentous as its rare that they change things and I think its astounding that there was a breakthrough at all ..... but beyond that there is nothing there ....IMO..

Edited September 11, 2008 by Tangerine Sheri

[Harte]

This is not news, this is a political ad from a campaign that follows karl Rove-style politics.

The bill in question is not to teach sex education at all, it's to teach kids what constitutes as inappropriate touching. is that wrong?

Absolutely right, it's not about what we normally think of as "sex education."

It's a political ploy intended to sway voters in an election year. I'm shocked, shocked I say, to find politicking in an election year!

As for "Rove-style" politics, it may be a tricky ad, but it's not nearly as loathesome as "Drag a dollar through a trailer park and you never know what you'll get" ala James Carville.

It's more along the same lines as "McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time!!!"

Both are disingenuous claims.

Harte

[Harte]

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.

As an educator myself, I have to disagree with you here.

NCLB merely screwed it up more.

The social experimentation with education is what originally screwed it up. That, along with the near total collapse of the family in much of urban America.

BTW, if "...you look up from the Kool Aid once in a while, Neognosis, you might realize that most conservatives are not what you say they are."

I've been registered as a Republican since 1974. Yet I voted for Carter twice and Clinton once. Last prez I voted for was Bob Dole, an honorable man in my estimation.

I teach high school math, but I assure you that if I taught biology, my students (inner-city) would most certainly understand evolution, or they would fail my class.

Harte

[Harte]

Extreme libs want m********ion, 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?

Perhaps he refers to Jocelyn Elders, Clinton's surgon general.

Didn't she opine that we should teach m********ion in school?

An unfortunate statement, if there ever was one.

Harte

Edited September 11, 2008 by Harte

[+Sherapy]

As an educator myself, I have to disagree with you here.

NCLB merely screwed it up more.

The social experimentation with education is what originally screwed it up. That, along with the near total collapse of the family in much of urban America.

BTW, if "...you look up from the Kool Aid once in a while, Neognosis, you might realize that most conservatives are not what you say they are."

I've been registered as a Republican since 1974. Yet I voted for Carter twice and Clinton once. Last prez I voted for was Bob Dole, an honorable man in my estimation.

I teach high school math, but I assure you that if I taught biology, my students (inner-city) would most certainly understand evolution, or they would fail my class.

Harte

last year NCLB in California lost 300 million dollars to the charters, the home school publicly funded alternative education in my home state of California is the fastest growing educational alternative because of NCLB... we were 5000 students strong in the Los Angeles area last year..This year we are 10 thousand strong that's how much it grew in a year...mainly word of mouth... the high school program grew the most as far as the numbers grow...that is the reality of NCLB.. it took an already failing educational system and blew it down in one swoop....

I do beleive it was the Clinton's that pushed through the charters....

The accredited teacher that I work under was a public school retired teacher for 30 years i asked her why did you come out of retirement to suppor the charter take a cut in pay?? she said I want to be part of something that is actually good for kids ...

when i was seeking a alternative to NCLB it was my teacher friends who not only helped me the most but encouraged me .the irony is that the home school movement started to keep govt out of the religious philososphy so they could teach what they wanted such as creationsim as science .... yet again they messed themselves up' now' you can home school but you have to use a state mandated curricula which includes science and evolution.....*shrugs*

Edited September 11, 2008 by Tangerine Sheri

[Copasetic]

The meager evidence I speak of has a lot to do with the holes in the theory of evolution, but that's not all. I actually thought creationism was a bunch of malarkey until one morning when a Jehovah Witness was whack-whacking on my door. She said hello and asked if she could come in and read the Bible. I told her it wasn't a good time, so she left a little magazine instead; it was all about creationism. Some of the things in the magazine were pretty neat. Obviously it offered no conclusive evidence, but it did show certain things and explained certain things that evolution could not. Again, there was no conclusive evidence, but it was neat nonetheless.

There are many things taught in schools that are simply theories. Much of psychology rests on theory rather than fact, especially when your studies take you into Freudian psychology. And I never said creationism should be taught as a science course, but it should be taught nonetheless. If nothing else, it should be an elective. Creationism by itself is not religion specific. It has nothing to do with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any other religion. If people are concerned about children leaving school as well-rounded adults, then what's the problem with giving them another possible explanation? Evolution has many, many holes, yet it is still taught, as it should be, as though it happened without doubt. I am only 22, so I took Biology in high school not so long ago. They didn't tell us any of the holes in evolution. They presented it as fact - period, end of story.

And I'm all for kindergartners being taught sex education - within reason. I'm a huge liberal, extremely critical of religion. Read all of my posts before drawing a conclusion, please. I hate someone even having a slight notion I am a conservative.

Hi Irish,

I always hear this from people, the "holes in evolution". Yet I never to seem to be able to find answer to them. Could you tell me what they are?

[Copasetic]

I'm sorry but y'all are round the bend if you think Barack Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners--that any major candidate for elected office anywhere in this country would advocate such. Every child advocate in the country would be outraged.

"Well, gee, if a McCain ad claims he does, it must be true!!!"

They're just trying to distract you and y'all seem all too happy to oblige: pay no attention to the man behind the smear campaign! This from the guy who last week claimed to have "the utmost respect for Senator Obama." Really, really ugly, folks.

Now, please, repeat after me: reality ≠ a South Park episode. Reality ≠ a South Park episode. Reality ≠ a South Park episode. Feel better?

I agree, political campaigns in this country have gotten to the point of disgust. I would hope that a presidential election would be above the tactics used during elections in my fraternity days, but it seems not. Frankly I am fed up with smear campaigns, waste of resources and immature behavior by both parties. I find it troublesome that a nation can be so captivated by two adult representatives of their parties acting like a couple of teenage girls (no offense to any teenage girls reading).

Of course I probably should not expect that much from a country that idolizes shows like "Who wants to marry a millionaire" or "Who wants to marry a porn star" or "who wants to marry a midget" or "Who wants to marry my dad" or"Temptation island" or "Flavor of love" or "Farmer wants a wife".

Sigh, *off to find a new society of like-minded people*

[eqgumby]

Perhaps he refers to Jocelyn Elders, Clinton's surgon general.

Didn't she opine that we should teach m********ion in school?

An unfortunate statement, if there ever was one.

Harte

Thanks for jumping in there Harte.

I am a little baffled by some of the responses I recieved. I think much of it is because in a case like this, I recieve hits from both sides to my middle-of-the-road stance.

So for Neo and Irish in particular:

Do not call me a liar. Leave your arm-chair psychology at the door with your adhom. attacks.

When you quote, please use the name in the quotes. A few times it looked like I was being attributed to a quote that was NOTmine.

To the issue at hand:

I don't think the GOVERNMENT or GOVERNMENT RUN SCHOOLS have any place or right to teach my children morals, unless they relate directly to behavior in the classroom.

It is the PARENTS job to instill values, religion, culture, respect, and humanity.

Public school should be OUT of the business of teaching morality or belief systems like religion to ANYONE.

[IrishAidan07]

Just because something in a leaflet sounds convincing does not make it right. I have seen many stories where 'x' cannot be explained by evolution when in fact in can be. Sure, there are some things that currently cannot but that does not mean that they never will. ID is basically 'evolution cannot explain x, God did it'. What happens if evolution figures an explanation for x? ID will then say 'what about y, God did it'? Evolution then explains y, ID asks 'what about z, God did it' and on and on... That is not a theory, it is a lack of a theory - it is a 'god of the gaps' argument that offers no real answers but an invitation to faith.

I never said it was convincing, but it was interesting nonetheless. I was glad, having read it completely, that the lady left it for me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with offering teenagers another viewpoint. If the true nature of school is ensure our citizens are well-rounded, then what could possibly be wrong with presenting the evidence, theories, and general idea of I.D.? It seems to me the only individuals against I.D. being taught in schools are people who are afraid their children may not have them same spiritual mindset as them. You said it all when you said "an invitation to faith." It seems like you don't think children can be trusted to make an informed decision on there own. We have to keep all the "bad propaganda" away from them.

That's not giving your children a great deal of credit, in my view. We teach young adults that babies suck their thumbs to achieve some type of sexual pleasure (Infantile Sexuality, Sigmund Freud), but we won't even consider teaching them that evolution may not be the only explanation for all of this. I think that's rather sad, and unbecoming of a true liberal.

I always hear this from people, the "holes in evolution". Yet I never to seem to be able to find answer to them. Could you tell me what they are?

An incomplete fossil record, for one. For two, the idea that all of this was created by a single-celled organism is almost, not quite but almost, mathematically impossible, so they say. I honestly don't know that much about it, but you can get more information here.

Again, I'm critical of religion. But when over 90% of the people in this country believe in a creator, I think offering something other than evolution, even as a non-science course, is appropriate.

Edited September 12, 2008 by IrishAidan

[IrishAidan07]

Didn't she opine that we should teach m********ion in school?

It does relieve stress. I mean, could there be a better release (lol) of stress before a big exam?

Also, we don't want our young folks getting carpal tunnel, now do we? Proper technique is a must.

Edited September 12, 2008 by IrishAidan

[ravergirl]

Nothing Sex-ed is age appropriate for kindergartners. I had sex-ed starting in 6th grade, it was just fine

[Neognosis]

Nothing Sex-ed is age appropriate for kindergartners. I had sex-ed starting in 6th grade, it was just fine

For the last time...that's NOT what the bill Obama supported calls for. It calls for teaching kindergarten kids where it is and isn't appropriate for an adult to touch them.

Will the flood of gullible ignorance never staunch?