• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should schools include gay sex as part of sex education curriculum?

Should gay sex be added to the sex education curriculum?


  • Total voters
    38
Sex education in the schools should be limited in scope to the health aspects--i.e., transmission of STDs and the potential for pregnancy, when is it rape and not sex, et cetera. To the greatest extent possible, it should be value neutral. It is not the job of a school to teach morals.

Sexual acts are not homosexual acts until and unless the sexual actors are both male or both female. Anal sex is not gay sex unless both are men. Oral sex is not gay sex unless both are male or both are female. The health and safety aspects which are the proper academic objectives of sex education derive from specific sexual acts, which can be discussed and taught from a gender-neutral perspective. The cliched sayings about condom use ("put it on before you put it in," "no glove, no love", "always wear a raincoat", "don't be silly, cover that willy") are equally applicable to male-female as well as male-male sexual contact.

What does need to be a part of sex education is the range of sexual acts that can be dangerous. The great risk to today's youth is that many honestly believe that oral sex and anal sex are not "sex". Sex education should not be limited merely to safe practices for vaginal intercourse.

Homosexuality itself should not be a part of sex education in the schools, simply because the emotional content of sexual relationships and the sublime psychology of one's sexuality are not academic lessons any school can ever be equipped to teach.

I think our schools need to do a better job teaching fundamentals like math, english, and history before we concern ourselves with teaching them about sex. A well-educated population will not be so ignorant as to believe what you've just written.

While we have sex-ed courses, sure we should go ahead and throw in that anal sex is the most conductive route of AIDS transmission after needle drugs. But as far as the gory details, let them figure it out on their own.

It also depends on the age of the student. I think most parents would be appalled that their young children (under 14?) would be learning about anal sex, especially while they're not even receiving a proper education in the fundamentals.

Also, keep in mind it's possible to discuss cunnilingus, fellatio, and anal sex without going into homosexuality.
 
The easiest way to bypass is just teach everything based on the biology of the organs involved. Gay or straight, anal sex works exactly the same way. Kids should be informed based on objective facts as much as possible, and social conditioning as little as possible.
 
The easiest way to bypass is just teach everything based on the biology of the organs involved. Gay or straight, anal sex works exactly the same way. Kids should be informed based on objective facts as much as possible, and social conditioning as little as possible.

That's a good point. At my school our "sex ed" class was more a class in reproductive biology. No condoms on bananas or any of that ****. That's the way it should be.
 
That's a good point. At my school our "sex ed" class was more a class in reproductive biology. No condoms on bananas or any of that ****. That's the way it should be.

Did it include the comment by the teacher about how semen has a lot of sugars in it and a girl then raises her hand and asks, "So why does it taste so salty?" ;)

Has everyone heard that story? :rofl
 
Regardless, i think its vital that gay students should recieve some kind of education and information about gay sex, how its carried out and again, how to keep safe. Sex ed. isnt just about how to use a condom. It teaches you how to have sex, creativedreams its a big shame you wasnt listening in that lesson my virgin friend.

Wow. I disagree STRONGLY. It is NOT the school, and thus the STATE'S, place to be teaching children or even teenagers "how its carried out". No, simply no. Parents if they want to discuss it, can discuss it. Kids talking with each other can discuss it. They may end up learning whenever they attempt it.

But it is not the schools duty to teach them HOW to have sex, nor should they. They shouldn't be teaching them "you can aslo stimulate a man to orgasm by using your tongue in this way" or "these are the 5 most commonly used sexual positions" or anything else about how its "carried out".

Sexual Education should focus on the health aspects of it. I think APS and Celticlord this out of the park. You don't specifically go into details about homosexual sex, but you talk about how to go about safe sex. Safe sex remains the same be it between two of the same sex or two of different sex.

I do not mind homosexuality being mentioned in sexual education, but I do not believe it should be focused on greatly nor presented as an equally common thing as heterosexuality because its not, and your numbers you posted even back that up. It shouldn't be shown as something that is "wrong", but we should not be imparting to our students that its just as common to find someone that's gay as it is someone straight and you should just explore and figure out what you are because the fact is the majority of people ARE straight. While I sympathize with the view that homosexuals can become confused because they feel they can't express themselves, and its why I don't mind health classes making mention of homosexuality and not painting it as a negative thing, I think it would be even more unfair to institutionalize confusion upon the majority by causing straight children that would previously never give it a second thought to be wondering "Am I gay? Should I be gay? Is this something I should 'try' to see if it appeals to me".

But, more to the point of response, sexual education should focus primarily on the health and biological aspects. If it does that, it'll be applicable across the board.

In regards to the perosn that's putting out mildly trolling points that are barely relevant to the subject and is just meant to get people heated....ignore him. Only reason he's still posting in the thread and spewing his ignorant annoying stereotypical dribble is because people are responding to it and feeding into it.
 
Last edited:
Regardless, i think its vital that gay students should recieve some kind of education and information about gay sex, how its carried out and again, how to keep safe. Sex ed. isnt just about how to use a condom. It teaches you how to have sex, creativedreams its a big shame you wasnt listening in that lesson my virgin friend.
It bloody well better not be teaching that.

Schools should not be teaching sexual technique, merely sexual safety. As a matter of public health, education about the full range of transmission vectors for STDs and the potential for pregnancy serves a distinct public good. "How to have sex" does not.

(Besides, isn't that what porn is for?;))
 
It bloody well better not be teaching that.

Schools should not be teaching sexual technique, merely sexual safety. As a matter of public health, education about the full range of transmission vectors for STDs and the potential for pregnancy serves a distinct public good. "How to have sex" does not.

(Besides, isn't that what porn is for?;))

I am thoroughly enjoying reading your posts in here. :2wave:
 
Maybe I am a flaw in human nature but I am not going to get all defensive about it and demand people speak of me in politically correct ways

ironic for you.... stating I am uneducated makes you the epidomy of ignorance

Perhaps i havent made myself clear. Im not the one who thinks homosexuality can be spread like friggin SARS. You cant just wave a wand to make people straight either. Perhaps you should learn to accept such people in our society instead of urging the state to "change them". Dont go all muslim on my ass.
 
It bloody well better not be teaching that.

Schools should not be teaching sexual technique, merely sexual safety. As a matter of public health, education about the full range of transmission vectors for STDs and the potential for pregnancy serves a distinct public good. "How to have sex" does not.

(Besides, isn't that what porn is for?;))

I remember watching a video in year 6 (whatever grade that is in the US) about sex education, and it had two computerized models having sex. First he got an erection and then he inserted it into her vagina. He then made back and fourth motions and it showed him ejaculating and then we saw inside the virgina and the workings of the sperm. I dont mean the teachers literally taught us, like brought the headmistress into class one day and told her to bend down or anything :p
It was quiet an educational video too.
 
It is not the job of a school to teach morals.


Normally, I would agree, apparently, moral values are no longer being taught, anywhere.......
The very idea that any perversion be taught in a school......when students are "graduating" without being able to read and write...
Twenty plus years ago, it was wrong to persecute a homosexual , now things seem to be completely out of balance..
 
Last edited:
Perhaps i havent made myself clear. Im not the one who thinks homosexuality can be spread like friggin SARS. You cant just wave a wand to make people straight either. Perhaps you should learn to accept such people in our society instead of urging the state to "change them". Dont go all muslim on my ass.

I have absolutely nothing against gays or lessies.

I just feel that the medical science industry has not correctly defined it and catagorized it for what it truely is and stems from...

It is not too far removed from a human having a relationship with a dog...

Man+man or man+dog
both of these scenarios are completely unnatural
 
I just feel that the medical science industry has not correctly defined it and catagorized it for what it truely is and stems from...

This hasnt been scientifically prooven...stop throwing things out there expecting me to buy it.

Man+man or man+dog
both of these scenarios are completely unnatural

This ignorant statement right here makes me question your actual stance on homosexuals despite your false claim they you have "nothing against them".
The fact you just compared a gay relationship to a man having a relationship with a dog is sickening, and clearly shows a huge lack of understanding on your part.
Ever since there where straights there where gays, if your claim is true that homosexuality is genetic-related, then theres nothing unnatur(e)al about it.
 
Normally, I would agree, apparently, moral values are no longer being taught, anywhere.......
The very idea that any perversion be taught in a school......when students are "graduating" without being able to read and write...
Twenty plus years ago, it was wrong to persecute a homosexual , now things seem to be completely out of balance..
Not quite sure which side you're landing on....

First, let's be clear about something: homosexuality is not a perversion, nor are homosexual acts. Gay sex is not perverse sex.

Second, the only place morals should ever be taught is in the home, from parent to child. Any other source of moral instruction is indoctrination, and is automatically morally suspect on that basis.

Third, even if morals are not being taught in any home, that still would not justify teaching any form of morality in any public school. Government is not an arbiter of morals, and can never be an arbiter of morals; the very nature of government precludes this.

Sex education in schools is justifiable only on the basis of public health and public safety. Any form of sex education which goes beyond preventing the spread of STDs, the mechanics of contraception, as well as the nature of sexual assault, is overstepping its bounds. Any form of sex education which defines a sex act as "perverse" is teaching morality, and is significantly overstepping its bounds.
 
First, let's be clear about something: homosexuality is not a perversion, nor are homosexual acts. Gay sex is not perverse sex.

Try telling creativedreams that.
 
Ever since there where straights there where gays, if your claim is true that homosexuality is genetic-related, then theres nothing unnatur(e)al about it.

There are many genetic flaws in humans that come out once in a while...Autism, Growth defects, Mentally Challenge.....REPRODUCTIVELY CHALLENGED, etc.
 
There are many genetic flaws in humans that come out once in a while...Autism, Growth defects, Mentally Challenge.....REPRODUCTIVELY CHALLENGED, etc.

Gays are not reproductively challenged. They could still screw a girl and get her pregnant. Dont confuse homosexual people to somebody with damaged goods.
 
There are many genetic flaws in humans that come out once in a while...Autism, Growth defects, Mentally Challenge.....REPRODUCTIVELY CHALLENGED, etc.

I could come up with numerous arguments as to why a 'gay gene' might actually help reproduction. For instance, lets consider a very average-looking, perhaps homely, Cro-Magnon female 30,000 years ago. She might have had difficulty finding a suitable mate. Now consider that she had a gay brother who loved to fiddle with her hair and clothing and make her up very pretty... suddenly her chances of successfully breeding have increased dramatically, ensuring the 'family' gene pool gets passed on.

;)
 
Gays are not reproductively challenged. They could still screw a girl and get her pregnant. Dont confuse homosexual people to somebody with damaged goods.

Yes they can still impregnate but their chemical imbalance steers them toward the same sex.

Not much unlike a chemical imbalance may steer grown men toward little boys
 
I could come up with numerous arguments as to why a 'gay gene' might actually help reproduction. For instance, lets consider a very average-looking, perhaps homely, Cro-Magnon female 30,000 years ago. She might have had difficulty finding a suitable mate. Now consider that she had a gay brother who loved to fiddle with her hair and clothing and make her up very pretty... suddenly her chances of successfully breeding have increased dramatically, ensuring the 'family' gene pool gets passed on.

;)


Nowadays they just go to the bar at closing time...:)
 
Yes they can still impregnate but their chemical imbalance steers them toward the same sex.

Not much unlike a chemical imbalance may steer grown men toward little boys

So they still have the ability to reproduce, therefore they are not reproductively challenged. Your are acting as if chemical imbalances and "gay" genes are a proven scientific explanation towards the preference of ones sexual attractions, and you are also basing the majority of your arguments on unproven theories. Im still dazed at your man+man = man+ dog comment. Please explain, because quiet frankly im lost for words.
 
So they still have the ability to reproduce, therefore they are not reproductively challenged. Your are acting as if chemical imbalances and "gay" genes are a proven scientific explanation towards the preference of ones sexual attractions, and you are also basing the majority of your arguments on unproven theories. Im still dazed at your man+man = man+ dog comment. Please explain, because quiet frankly im lost for words.

I was just trying to convey how there are many different extremes of being unnatural relations....

The only natural relations are man+woman at relatively near ages

Anything else is unnatural on many different levels of extremes
 
I was just trying to convey how there are many different extremes of being unnatural relations....

The only natural relations are man+woman at relatively near ages

Anything else is unnatural on many different levels of extremes

Ill accept that, under the bases homosexual relationships are boardering onto natural and are not completely natural only under the sole condition that our bodies werent completely geared for gay sex but under that condition alone. And try avoiding categorizing gay sex with having sex with a dog or horse in the future. :2wave:
 
Ill accept that, under the bases homosexual relationships are boardering onto natural and are not completely natural only under the sole condition that our bodies werent completely geared for gay sex but under that condition alone. And try avoiding categorizing gay sex with having sex with a dog or horse in the future. :2wave:

Being gay is the closest natural relationship next to a truely natural relationship:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom