• 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
Ok, exactly, so let's NOT discriminate and go ahead and add it to education.

How is it "discrimination" if you don't mention either?
 
This argument is disingenuous and it can be proved in a very simple way.

If it's true that sexual orientation has 'no bearing' on the teaching of sex ed and health and safety, then there should be no objections to interchanging masculine and feminine pronouns in texts.

For instance, the phrase,

'The passive partner in anal sex should ensure that her partner uses a condom to prevent the risk of HIV/AIDS'

could just as well read

'The passive partner in anal sex should ensure that his partner uses a condom to prevent the risk of HIV/AIDS.'

Since sexual orientation is irrelevant. Either should be acceptable.

Any objections?

:2wave:

That presumes such a detailed description is even necessary, which it isn't. :roll:

But even if it were, a gender-neutral "their" covers all the bases and takes any relevance of orientation straight out of it.
 
That presumes such a detailed description is even necessary, which it isn't. :roll:

But even if it were, a gender-neutral "their" covers all the bases and takes any relevance of orientation straight out of it.

The fact that you go to such great lengths to eliminate any reference to sexual orientation suggests that it does indeed matter to you very much.

I asked you previously whether you thought it would be appropriate to discuss sexual orientation in any other class, such as civics. You did not respond. So I'll ask again... under what context could or should any public school teacher lead a discussion of homosexuality?

;)
 
This argument is disingenuous and it can be proved in a very simple way.

If it's true that sexual orientation has 'no bearing' on the teaching of sex ed and health and safety, then there should be no objections to interchanging masculine and feminine pronouns in texts.

For instance, the phrase,

'The passive partner in anal sex should ensure that her partner uses a condom to prevent the risk of HIV/AIDS'

could just as well read

'The passive partner in anal sex should ensure that his partner uses a condom to prevent the risk of HIV/AIDS.'

Since sexual orientation is irrelevant. Either should be acceptable.

Any objections?

:2wave:

What sex ed class are your children taking that describe how to perform anal sex?

Sexual education classes are for the teaching of reproduction, biology, diseases, and contraceptives. How to use a condom doesn't change based on sexual position so describing the act isn't required in the explanation of why or how to utilize a condom.
 
What sex ed class are your children taking that describe how to perform anal sex?

Sexual education classes are for the teaching of reproduction, biology, diseases, and contraceptives. How to use a condom doesn't change based on sexual position so describing the act isn't required in the explanation of why or how to utilize a condom.

Nothing in my post suggested a 'how to manual' for doing anything. There is simply no way that HIV/AIDS can reasonably be discussed in a sex ed class without mentioning that anal sex is the highest risk activity. If your goal is to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS, then you either need to instruct the students to refrain from anal sex, or to use a condom during anal sex. If a student asks 'What is anal sex?', what would you have the teacher respond? Nothing? To simply ignore the issue altogether would be ridiculous.

If issues such as this offend the sensibilities then you might as well do away with sex ed altogether.
 
The fact that you go to such great lengths to eliminate any reference to sexual orientation suggests that it does indeed matter to you very much.

I go to no lengths. My view and statements on this have been consistently simple.

Instead, it is YOU who go to fantastic lengths to try to find some reason why sexual orientation should matter to the purposes of a sex ed class, especially as I and about a dozen others have described it.

Just because I recognize what you're doing and refuse to buy into it, it doesn't mean that I'm the one doing the gymnastics. It's you.

One more time: "if you're sticking it in, or getting it stuck into you, use a condom." It's a universal rule which covers all bases.


I asked you previously whether you thought it would be appropriate to discuss sexual orientation in any other class, such as civics. You did not respond. So I'll ask again... under what context could or should any public school teacher lead a discussion of homosexuality?

And I told YOU previously that may statements were about the sex ed class as I described it and about nothing else, and I'm not, nor am I interested in, discussing any other kind of class. Why? Because it's not germane to the thread. and I don't feel like it.

And that, I'm afraid, is the answer you're just going to have to accept. :roll:
 
Last edited:
This argument is disingenuous and it can be proved in a very simple way.

If it's true that sexual orientation has 'no bearing' on the teaching of sex ed and health and safety, then there should be no objections to interchanging masculine and feminine pronouns in texts.

For instance, the phrase,

'The passive partner in anal sex should ensure that her partner uses a condom to prevent the risk of HIV/AIDS'

could just as well read

'The passive partner in anal sex should ensure that his partner uses a condom to prevent the risk of HIV/AIDS.'

Since sexual orientation is irrelevant. Either should be acceptable.

Any objections?

:2wave:

How about: "Always make sure that you or your partner always uses a condom when having penetrative sex"
 
How is it "discrimination" if you don't mention either?

Not discrimination like "oh we're gonna offend people" but discrimination like "oh let's teach this subject but not this." It unnecessarily discriminates what "should be taught" versus what "should not be taught" based on opinion, and basing it on opinion is wrong. We should just teach about it anyway.
 
Not discrimination like "oh we're gonna offend people" but discrimination like "oh let's teach this subject but not this." It unnecessarily discriminates what "should be taught" versus what "should not be taught" based on opinion, and basing it on opinion is wrong. We should just teach about it anyway.

If you don't mention any sexual orientation, how is it "let's teach this subject but not this"? Neither is "taught."
 
I go to no lengths. My view and statements on this have been consistently simple.

Instead, it is YOU who go to fantastic lengths to try to find some reason why sexual orientation should matter to the purposes of a sex ed class, especially as I and about a dozen others have described it.

Just because I recognize what you're doing and refuse to buy into it, it doesn't mean that I'm the one doing the gymnastics. It's you.

One more time: "if you're sticking it in, or getting it stuck into you, use a condom." It's a universal rule which covers all bases.




And I told YOU previously that may statements were about the sex ed class as I described it and about nothing else, and I'm not, nor am I interested in, discussing any other kind of class. Why? Because it's not germane to the thread. and I don't feel like it.

And that, I'm afraid, is the answer you're just going to have to accept. :roll:

Once again you've taken the time to write a rather lengthy response... but can't seem to find the time or inclination to answer a very simple question. No gymnastics are required... no contortions, flips, cartwheels or handstands.

Should homosexuality be addressed in the public school in any classroom setting, and if so, in what context? If not, why not?

Whether or not you believe the question is germane to the thread or not really shouldn't be an issue. There's no rule on message boards that I'm aware of that prohibits discussion outside the very strict limits of the OP. And I think most reasonable people would consider the question very much germane to the overall issue of sex education in schools.

..
 
Nothing in my post suggested a 'how to manual' for doing anything. There is simply no way that HIV/AIDS can reasonably be discussed in a sex ed class without mentioning that anal sex is the highest risk activity. If your goal is to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS, then you either need to instruct the students to refrain from anal sex, or to use a condom during anal sex. If a student asks 'What is anal sex?', what would you have the teacher respond? Nothing? To simply ignore the issue altogether would be ridiculous.

If issues such as this offend the sensibilities then you might as well do away with sex ed altogether.
You don't need to mention anything of sexual preference to talk about the risks of HIV, the most common transmissions of HIV, or to give a general description of anal sex.
 
You don't need to mention anything of sexual preference to talk about the risks of HIV, the most common transmissions of HIV, or to give a general description of anal sex.

Well that's like saying that you don't "need" to mention specific political parties in order to talk about United States elections. We could, for instance, devise a course that makes no mention of Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or Greens. We could simply explain the process by which citizens vote in this nation, how the electoral college works and the significance of the twelfth amendment. We could make sure that our kids remain unaware that politicians are most normally affiliated with one major party or another. But in a world where political parties do indeed exist... it would seem odd to construct a course in such a manner, don't you agree? The students would come away with an education that was somehow not quite complete... an understanding of the world that most educated people would consider insufficient.

And I think it would be reasonable to ask anyone who argued for such a 'neutral' discussion of American politics, a discussion which leaves out very obvious realities... what benefit they see by removing those obvious realities from the curriculum.

;)
 
. To suggest that sexual orientation 'doesn't matter' defies common sense, especially in this day and age where gays and lesbians are quite visible. And it would certainly matter in any discussion of the risks of HIV/AIDS.

Please, enlighten us how being homosexual or heterosexual matters greatly in the discussion of the risk of HIV/AIDS?
 
Well that's like saying that you don't "need" to mention specific political parties in order to talk about United States elections. We could, for instance, devise a course that makes no mention of Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or Greens. We could simply explain the process by which citizens vote in this nation, how the electoral college works and the significance of the twelfth amendment. We could make sure that our kids remain unaware that politicians are most normally affiliated with one major party or another. But in a world where political parties do indeed exist... it would seem odd to construct a course in such a manner, don't you agree? The students would come away with an education that was somehow not quite complete... an understanding of the world that most educated people would consider insufficient.

And I think it would be reasonable to ask anyone who argued for such a 'neutral' discussion of American politics, a discussion which leaves out very obvious realities... what benefit they see by removing those obvious realities from the curriculum.

;)

I am in no way saying the types of sexual orientations not be mentioned in any manner. There should be education on the differing types of sexual orientations.

What is not needed is what sexual techniques those specific sexual orientations generally participate in. There is no educational benefit in it, their participating techniques are completely subjective.
 
Please, enlighten us how being homosexual or heterosexual matters greatly in the discussion of the risk of HIV/AIDS?

Oh we don't necessarily have to stick with HIV/AIDS. We could take the example of chlamydia, for example. Here's an excerpt from the CDC website about that particular STD...

Chlamydia can be transmitted during vaginal, anal, or oral sex. Chlamydia can also be passed from an infected mother to her baby during vaginal childbirth.
Any sexually active person can be infected with chlamydia. The greater the number of sex partners, the greater the risk of infection. Because the cervix (opening to the uterus) of teenage girls and young women is not fully matured and is probably more susceptible to infection, they are at particularly high risk for infection if sexually active. Since chlamydia can be transmitted by oral or anal sex, men who have sex with men are also at risk for chlamydial infection.

We could easily modify that paragraph to strip away any mention of those segments of the population who are at high-risk for this disease. But what would be the point of excluding that information? I think most reasonable people would agree that students should understand why young women, in particular, are at greater risk. Similarly, if another segment of the population is at high risk, it seems more than reasonable to explain which segment that is and why.

..
 
Last edited:
Oh we don't necessarily have to stick with HIV/AIDS. We could take the example of chlamydia, for example. Here's an excerpt from the CDC website about that particular STD...

We could easily modify that paragraph to strip away any mention of those segments of the population who are at high-risk for this disease. But what would be the point of excluding that information? I think most reasonable people would agree that students should understand why young women, in particular, are at greater risk. Similarly, if another segment of the population is at high risk, it seems more than reasonable to explain which segment that is and why.

..

Correct. The people specified there are more suspectable because of a biological issue unique to themselves.

Again, I'll ask, how does being homosexual in and of itself increase ones risk of AIDS/HIV? Especially in a similar term that you just presented which is a biological singularlity present in only that specific group (in the case you presented teenage girls and young women).
 
Again, I'll ask, how does being homosexual in and of itself increase ones risk of AIDS/HIV? Especially in a similar term that you just presented which is a biological singularlity present in only that specific group (in the case you presented teenage girls and young women).

"Being" a homosexual does not inherently increase ones risk for HIV/AIDS any more than "being" a young female increases one's risk of chlamydia.

A young female who abstains from sex will be at no risk for chlamydia, just as a homosexual male who abstains from sex will be at no risk for HIV/AIDS. A black who abstains from sex will be at no more risk for HIV/AIDS than a white or a Hispanic.

In the real world, we understand that the risk of acquiring STDs are determined not only by behavior, but also by gender, sexual orientation, and even race/ethnicity. In recent years the rate of HIV infection among black females in the U.S. has skyrocketed. It's now the leading cause of death among black women aged 24-35 years of age. While the race of a person may not be meaningful when explaining the act of intercourse, it certainly has a bearing on the risk to students who may happen to be a part of that demographic. I think that's information they ought to know.

I'm not telling you anything you don't know, of course. I simply don't see how anyone would find it 'irrelevant' or 'unimportant' or 'not meaningful' to teach this very basic fact in a sex ed class, and pretend that sexual orientation is irrelevant to the discussion... any more than they'd suggest we ignore the very critical relevance of race or any other demographic.

..
 
Last edited:
"Being" a homosexual does not inherently increase ones risk for HIV/AIDS any more than "being" a young female increases one's risk of chlamydia.

Not at all, as I'll show.

A young female who abstains from sex will be at no risk for chlamydia, just as a homosexual male who abstains from sex will be at no risk for HIV/AIDS. A black who abstains from sex will be at no more risk for HIV/AIDS than a white or a Hispanic.

Here's the difference.

A young female that has normal vaginal sex has a higher risk for chlamydia than a male having vaginal sex.

HOWEVER

A man recieving anal sex has no more or less of a chance of getting HIV than a female recieving it.

If you can provide me some scientific evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. However, this is something I've not seen before.

As such, what is the health benefit exactly of informing teens that homosexuals having anal sex presents a large potential for HIV over presenting to them that having anal sex in general presents a larger potential for HIV transmission?

Indeed, by teaching it in the former way, it appears that you'd be telling females that if THEY'RE the ones having anal sex its actually safer for them then their male counter parts, which all evidence I've seen is in the contrary.

That's the difference.

Young female has higher chance than young male when engaging in specific sex act.

Gay Male has no higher chance than straight female when engaging in a specific sex act.

In the real world, we understand that the risk of acquiring STDs are determined not only by behavior, but also by gender, sexual orientation, and even race/ethnicity.

Except its not. Being black does not mean you're more suspectable from a genetic level to HIV to my understanding, nor does being gay. Being gay doesn't change your genetic nature. Its the societal actions of many in various groups that are the reasons for the higher occurance of STD's in particular segments of the population, not necessarily a biological issue.

Straight, Gay, Bi....put a condom on your dick and it will reduce your chance of transmitting or getting an STD. Doesn't matter if its going in an ass, a mouth, or a *****, that helps. You can combat the ignorance amongst the different societal groups through proper education in a general sense without feeding lies and misinformation into their head, which you seem to be wishing to do, by implying that certain groups are just more "naturally" likely to get it which isn't the case to my knowledge.

Again, some scientific data going agaisnt what I've learned would be appreciated if you think I'm wrong.

In recent years the rate of HIV infection among black females in the U.S. has skyrocketed. It's now the leading cause of death among black women aged 24-35 years of age.

And no scientific study I've seen links this to their RACE being a biological issue for it. Everything I've read has to do with cultural and societal variables, not biological.

While the race of a person may not be meaningful when explaining the act of intercourse, it certainly has a bearing on the risk to students who may happen to be a part of that demographic. I think that's information they ought to know.

If during a session where its discussing AIDS and its brought up that currently the highest aids rates are in the black and homosexual community due to lifestyle issues, that's one thing.

However, it does not need to be anything more than an ancillary mention because when it comes down to it the methods of remaining safe from STD's remains the same, gay or straight. As such, it can be taught in a generalized way.
 
Last edited:
Nothing in my post suggested a 'how to manual' for doing anything. There is simply no way that HIV/AIDS can reasonably be discussed in a sex ed class without mentioning that anal sex is the highest risk activity. If your goal is to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS, then you either need to instruct the students to refrain from anal sex, or to use a condom during anal sex. If a student asks 'What is anal sex?', what would you have the teacher respond? Nothing? To simply ignore the issue altogether would be ridiculous.

If issues such as this offend the sensibilities then you might as well do away with sex ed altogether.
why does sexual orientation have any bearing on the risk factors associated with getting pounded in the ass?
Penis in an ass is the riskiest behavior
it has no bearing whether it is a girls or guys ass
 
why does sexual orientation have any bearing on the risk factors associated with getting pounded in the ass?
Penis in an ass is the riskiest behavior
it has no bearing whether it is a girls or guys ass

Nice......:lol:
 
the lengths some will go to further an agenda is astonishing
especially since some are claiming discrimination where there is none, about a subject about which there used to be alot, yet now there is less, and things improve everyday
but keep shooting your agenda in its foot with you silliness. fun thread i will say that
 
As such, what is the health benefit exactly of informing teens that homosexuals having anal sex presents a large potential for HIV over presenting to them that having anal sex in general presents a larger potential for HIV transmission?

It's the very same kind of benefit that is gained by informing kids that walking across a busy interstate is more dangerous than walking across a country road. While the physical act of walking across each road is essentially identical, the level of risk for one activity is so much greater than the other that to ignore the difference defies common sense.

In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM [1, 2].
CDC Fact Sheets

What would be the benefit in withholding this information from a public school sex ed discussion?

.
 
Penis in an ass is the riskiest behavior

What do you mean? As in your more likely to catch an STD/STI from the arse then you are from the vagina?
 
If during a session where its discussing AIDS and its brought up that currently the highest aids rates are in the black and homosexual community due to lifestyle issues, that's one thing.

At least you're allowing for the acknowledgment of homosexuals in a classroom discussion. I'm open to discussion about what type of information could or should be explained regarding sexual orientation. I think in a sex ed class the very minimum that should be taught is that there is such a thing as sexual orientation and that some minority of the population identifies as homosexual or bisexual. To refuse to acknowledge those basic facts is absurd.


:2wave:
 
It's the very same kind of benefit that is gained by informing kids that walking across a busy interstate is more dangerous than walking across a country road. While the physical act of walking across each road is essentially identical, the level of risk for one activity is so much greater than the other that to ignore the difference defies common sense.

Wrong.

The root cause of danger there is crossing the street, with the variable being how often the car is there.

Your example would be the sexual analogy of saying that its wrong to tell people that its no difference in the sexual chance to get an STD from masturbating than it is to having vaginal or anal sex. The baseline thing there that is sexual acts. Masturbation is like your country road, nearly 0 degree of risk. Anal sex would be like crossing in rush hour traffic.

A more accurate analysis would be to say that its found that more Hispanics per a % of their population are struck by cars than any other race. The reason for that, in this hypothetical, is because we'll say they have a cultural trait that they're more likely than other races to not cross at crosswalks and have less care of dodging through cars.

So should the teacher specifically stop to make it a teaching point when talking about how important it is to use cross walks and wait till traffic is not coming to stop and go "Now, for our Hispanic students I want to REALLY stress this because you all are just so much more susceptible to getting hit, you MUST use crosswalks and wait for traffic not to be there."

To me, I see no point in that.

For one, it implies to the rest of the students that somehow Hispanics are more likely due to some natural reason to get hit by cars and thus, by not being hispanic, they don't have to worry about following those rules nearly as much.

Second, it singles out the hispanic students, making them feel as if they're somehow dumber that they need something already stated to the rest of the kids repeated specifically for them.

And it can go on and no.

No, there, the teacher should be stressing the saftey in crossing the street REGARDLESS of ones sex. Likewise, teachers should be stressing the saftey needed in particular types of sex REGARDLESS of sexual preference.
 
Back
Top Bottom