• 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
Any form of sex education which defines a sex act as "perverse" is teaching morality, and is significantly overstepping its bounds.

Honest question here as I'm intrigued.

Would you agree equally as well that any sex education deeming an act morally okay, or societally normal, ALSO be teaching morality?
 
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:

Actually, that's not even entirely true either. We are built to derive pleasure from anal sex ie. stimulation of the prostate.
 
Actually, that's not even entirely true either. We are built to derive pleasure from anal sex ie. stimulation of the prostate.

I know we have a g-spot in our butts but men cant get pregnant :)
 
I know we have a g-spot in our butts but men cant get pregnant :)

That is true, but sex isn't meant for the sole purpose of procreation. If it were it would make no sense for there to be any pleasure to be derived from it.
 
That is true, but sex isn't meant for the sole purpose of procreation. If it were it would make no sense for there to be any pleasure to be derived from it.

That's exactly the opposite of common sense, isn't it? It's generally the pleasurable things in life that are most good for us... eating, grooming, bathing, cuddling, suckling, having sex. Even going to the bathroom generally 'feels good' for most people.

The more pleasure to be derived from an activity, the more important it is for our survival.

The only possible exceptions that come to mind are drugs and alcohol. It's not clear how much benefit we might derive from the pleasure of being drunk or doped... except that intoxication often leads to sex... or otherwise dulls the pain of a brutal existence.

;)
 
Honest question here as I'm intrigued.

Would you agree equally as well that any sex education deeming an act morally okay, or societally normal, ALSO be teaching morality?
Of course.

Sex education in the schools should not be about whether an act is "moral", "ok", "normal", or anything else. Sex "is"....and that's as far as it goes.

Whether acts are "moral" or "immoral" is for the parents to decide.
 
Absolutely not. Certainly it would help teach safety but there is far greater damage to children whom are subjected to this in class as if this was normal behaviour. No matter what anyone says whether professional or not, it is a mental illness that should be treated. What's next we teach safe human-animal sex to hillbillies in the Ozarks? This can be learned in private classes outside any tax paying program.
 
Honest question here as I'm intrigued.

Would you agree equally as well that any sex education deeming an act morally okay, or societally normal, ALSO be teaching morality?

I love this line of reasoning... because this is where many anti-gay folks get stuck in their arguments. They often resort to the claim that 'morality' should be left up to the parents, not the teachers. Which begs the question... if sexual morality is off-limits for teachers, are other moral issues off-limits as well? Lets say lying or stealing or violent behavior, for instance. Should teachers remain neutral on these issues?

What we're obviously left with is a situation similar to religious preference. It's not a teacher's role to suggest that Catholicism is preferable to Protestantism, or that Buddhism is more acceptable than Hinduism. A teacher's role is to explain that these are all socially acceptable... not that they are 'equal'... but that they are acceptable.

If parents wants to teach their children that Jews will burn in hell for not believing in Christ... as will gays... that's their prerogative. But the school should remain essentially neutral on that topic.

;)
 
Kaya’08
I agree that we must teach safety but, let’s get practical.
What would you teach?
 
I love this line of reasoning... because this is where many anti-gay folks get stuck in their arguments. They often resort to the claim that 'morality' should be left up to the parents, not the teachers. Which begs the question... if sexual morality is off-limits for teachers, are other moral issues off-limits as well? Lets say lying or stealing or violent behavior, for instance. Should teachers remain neutral on these issues?
Strictly speaking....yes, they should remain neutral.

Schools have codes and standards of conduct for students, and above that there are the usual laws against stealing and smacking the idiot next to you for the unpardonable sin of existing. Teachers should enforce those standards of conduct, but do so without moralizing about it. Morality is the parents' lesson to teach.

For example, I told my boys to disregard anything the school said about fighting. My rule to them was simple: Don't ever start a fight, but make damn sure you finish it. I most assuredly would have objected strenuously to any teacher attempting to instruct them otherwise on the matter.
 
Strictly speaking....yes, they should remain neutral.

Schools have codes and standards of conduct for students, and above that there are the usual laws against stealing and smacking the idiot next to you for the unpardonable sin of existing. Teachers should enforce those standards of conduct, but do so without moralizing about it. Morality is the parents' lesson to teach.

For example, I told my boys to disregard anything the school said about fighting. My rule to them was simple: Don't ever start a fight, but make damn sure you finish it. I most assuredly would have objected strenuously to any teacher attempting to instruct them otherwise on the matter.

So it's your belief that teachers have no role in teaching students the difference between 'right' and 'wrong?' How about kid's TV? Should cartoons and Nickelodeon be morally neutral as well? No values?

;)
 
So it's your belief that teachers have no role in teaching students the difference between 'right' and 'wrong?' How about kid's TV? Should cartoons and Nickelodeon be morally neutral as well? No values?

;)

They should be taught right and wrong in regards to lawful things. Stealing is not allowed, so you shouldn't steal. Its up to the parents to explain and instill in their children WHY they shouldn't steal morally other than just the law of it.

In regards to kids show and nickelodeon, they're free to do either. Last I checked, it is not mandatory for kids to watch television while it is mandatory kids go to some kind of schooling. Last I checked, my tax dollars aren't going to Nickelodean to produce kids shows, they are going to schools.

You're trying to compare apples to oranges and doing a poor job of it.
 
They should be taught right and wrong in regards to lawful things. Stealing is not allowed, so you shouldn't steal. Its up to the parents to explain and instill in their children WHY they shouldn't steal morally other than just the law of it.

So you agree with CelticLord that the public school system should be valueless?

;)
 
Schools teach sex-ed as a matter of two different things, as I see it: biology and safety.

I would suppose the primary point is of teaching this is to answer the question "Where to babies come from?" and explain the biology.

I would say that if gay sex education were brought to schools, then it should remain on the safety side, since it does not have much to do with the above question.

However, I still voted yes.
 
Schools teach sex-ed as a matter of two different things, as I see it: biology and safety.

I would suppose the primary point is of teaching this is to answer the question "Where to babies come from?" and explain the biology.

I would say that if gay sex education were brought to schools, then it should remain on the safety side, since it does not have much to do with the above question.

However, I still voted yes.
So there is no biological reason for gay sex.
 
There's no biological reason for Anal or Oral sex either, but should we not inform teenagers that just because its not "sexual intercourse" in the traditional sense that it still comes along with health risks?
 
Poll options are ridiculous. This is obviously a biased poll.
 
Absolutely not. Certainly it would help teach safety but there is far greater damage to children whom are subjected to this in class as if this was normal behaviour. No matter what anyone says whether professional or not, it is a mental illness that should be treated. What's next we teach safe human-animal sex to hillbillies in the Ozarks? This can be learned in private classes outside any tax paying program.

Yes I certainly agree it is a type of mental illness...

It just happens to be more widespread and therefore overlooked in this respect

Because this is a much more common type of illness it is quite possible that there is bias within the medical science industry being reluctant to define it like it is. The researchers may be gay themselves or have close friends that are gay. This creates the bias atmosphere to reluctanty call it what it is purely out of the reluctancy to hurt peoples feelings.
 
Last edited:
So it's your belief that teachers have no role in teaching students the difference between 'right' and 'wrong?' How about kid's TV? Should cartoons and Nickelodeon be morally neutral as well? No values?
Might as well be. A kid's TV should be kept in the "off" setting.
 
So there is no biological reason for gay sex.

Yes exactly, I'm saying we should not inform students about gay sex in a manner of biology, but in a manner of safe-sex and separate sex-ed.

It should still be discussed.

I think someone above me said something about anal sex. Its not really talked about in biology, but anal sex as well as AIDS is discussed in sex-ed classes.
 
Last edited:
Id teach reproduction and sex related risks from a biological perspective.
I would then explain how differant contraception technologies adresses these issues, going into great detail as to their limitations and risks.
The idea that anal sex cant result in pregnancy, but can result in infection would be adressed. Same for Oral. And then maybe a brief "and the same applies for homosexual as heterosexual relations here. In fact gay men have amongst the highest sexual infection rates in the country". U could cover this all in a completely values free manner (other than the idea that unsafe sex and promiscuity can be dangerous and often results in pregnancy, and that these are risks students should be made aware of and informed with strategies to avoid). Obviously, explain the fact abstinance is the safest road. But dont let this get in the way of explaining things kids would benifit from knowing.

I think ideas about homophobia and gay rights are probably better discussed in a social studies than a sex education environment. But I dont see why it should be swept under the rug just because people find it abhorant. It is a fact of the world. Many people are gay, and this should be discussed. And discussing it, and advocating tolerance for the actions of others that do not effect you is not the same as encouraging or condoning the bahviour.

If I were a social studies teacher a point I would try tog et across to my students is "think what you like about the actions of others, but if they do not negatively impact you or others, try to temper this judgement with tolerance and treat people with respect, regardless fo what you think of their lifestyle choices". This is a message id really try to drum into students across the board. The idea of tolerance and respect for harmless diversity (as oposed to diversity that creates victims).
 
Last edited:
I only agree with the biological standpoint up to a point. In all the sex ed classes I ever took, the introductory material refers to attraction between a man and woman. When I was 12, the first sex class I had was with a teacher who said, "You will begin feeling attractions to the opposite sex." This approach needs to change. There were even students in class who asked questions like, "How do gay people have sex?" or, "Is feeling attracted to the same sex a bad thing?" These kinds of questions were always treated awkwardly, or simply avoided.

The point of sex ed is to not only teach safety but to ease the transition into adolescent sexuality. If only one demographic is mentioned then whole other groups present in the class will have no foundation for understanding themselves; furthermore, they will have to seek that understanding in the outside world for themselves, sometimes from less than savoury sources.

I don't necessarily favour a discussion on gay sex, but addressing same-sex attraction is important.
 
I only agree with the biological standpoint up to a point. In all the sex ed classes I ever took, the introductory material refers to attraction between a man and woman. When I was 12, the first sex class I had was with a teacher who said, "You will begin feeling attractions to the opposite sex." This approach needs to change. There were even students in class who asked questions like, "How do gay people have sex?" or, "Is feeling attracted to the same sex a bad thing?" These kinds of questions were always treated awkwardly, or simply avoided.

Yes, very good point. I remember a lot of my classmates having the same questions in middle school and such, however the teacher never cared.

I would suspect that if a kid talks about "I am attracted to a person of my own gender," then its considered a problem then and there and they are counseled. However, if the same kid says "I am attracted to a person of the opposite sex," then of course, they are given a long lecture and 'taught' rather than counseled.

Or atleast that's how it used to be ... in my Texas middle school. :roll:

It does need to change.
 
Moderator's Warning:
creativedreams, this thread is about whether schools should include gay sex as part of sex education. You are trolling with your posting. Cease this behavior immediately or there will be further consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom