• 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 we move away from abstinence only sex education?

Should we move away from abstinence only sex education?


  • Total voters
    53
I think we need to hand out condoms in school and teach everything. Bristol Palin is a prime example of a failing sex education system. Just because you hand a kid a condom doesn't mean they'll use it. But if they're going to have sex, they'll have sex, and it's better with a condom than without.

Well, they MIGHT use it but let's face it one condom does not go far with horny teenagers.

Unless of course you are from Avegabenny where the local bicycle club keeps their emergency condom in a jar buried behind the Auto shed with a note "Please rinse out before replacing in jar":lol:
 
Last edited:
Bristol Palin is a prime example of a failing sex education system. Just because you hand a kid a condom doesn't mean they'll use it. But if they're going to have sex, they'll have sex, and it's better with a condom than without.

It doesn't really affect her though. The family is wealthy. She can afford a kid. Just saying.
 
Simple question, yes or no, and explain your answer.

Personally I think we should, it doesn't provide our kids with a proper sex education, and doesn't prepare them for the real world. I also think that sex education should include information on LGBT issues, and I think that our schools should offer condoms to our students with no questions asked.

I agree with you on the abstinence thing.
But why should it include lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender?

Sex ed should be purely fundamental - without delving into an opinion at all - it should approach it as a function of nature and nothing beyond that. The emotion, relationship and other aspects aren't a school-nature.
 
I agree with you on the abstinence thing.
But why should it include lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender?

Sex ed should be purely fundamental - without delving into an opinion at all - it should approach it as a function of nature and nothing beyond that. The emotion, relationship and other aspects aren't a school-nature.

Personally, I think the gay/lesbian/bisexual/tranny thing should be left out. I think its far better and more appropriate to discuss sexual organs (from a medical perspective), diseases, pregnancy, birth, and contraception (both abstinence and the use of various devices)

Social attitudes about what is or is not moral should always be left to the parents.
 
I agree with you on the abstinence thing.
But why should it include lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender?

Sex ed should be purely fundamental - without delving into an opinion at all - it should approach it as a function of nature and nothing beyond that. The emotion, relationship and other aspects aren't a school-nature.

I think that it would be a good thing to at least mention that these are sexualities and lifestyles that one may choose for themself. If the parents want to instill into their children that participating in such lifestyles is a sin, that is their business and should be left up to them. And it would be good to emphasize to teenagers that might be gay, whether they are openly so or still in the closet, the statistics and some facts about STDs and AIDS to them and ways that they can protect themselves. To relate the information only to heterosexual students could cause students who aren't to just tune out the information, which helps to put them at risk. If they feel included in the conversation, then they may actually take in and practice safe sex. I'm not suggesting courses on how to have sex, but every sexuality should be covered to help lessen the chances of getting AIDS or another STD for everyone, no matter what their sexuality.
 
I agree with you on the abstinence thing.
But why should it include lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender?

Sex ed should be purely fundamental - without delving into an opinion at all - it should approach it as a function of nature and nothing beyond that. The emotion, relationship and other aspects aren't a school-nature.

because the LGBT community has a pretty bad aids problem. I can see how it started, two dudes didn't wear a condom because obviously couldn't get pregnant from sex, and then HIV rolled around and now it affects millions
 
because the LGBT community has a pretty bad aids problem. I can see how it started, two dudes didn't wear a condom because obviously couldn't get pregnant from sex, and then HIV rolled around and now it affects millions

That would be addressed by covering diseases.
 
I think that it would be a good thing to at least mention that these are sexualities and lifestyles that one may choose for themself. If the parents want to instill into their children that participating in such lifestyles is a sin, that is their business and should be left up to them. And it would be good to emphasize to teenagers that might be gay, whether they are openly so or still in the closet, the statistics and some facts about STDs and AIDS to them and ways that they can protect themselves. To relate the information only to heterosexual students could cause students who aren't to just tune out the information, which helps to put them at risk. If they feel included in the conversation, then they may actually take in and practice safe sex. I'm not suggesting courses on how to have sex, but every sexuality should be covered to help lessen the chances of getting AIDS or another STD for everyone, no matter what their sexuality.

Why do 5th graders need to know about lifestyles?

There are countless other *lifestyles* that aren't discussed, taught or talked about that aren't mentioned at all.

Why not Fetish, bondage, swinging and BDSM? I could write a year's curriculum around all those things - but I digress.

Theres *sex ed* and then there's *sexuality* . . . and I prefer my kids are limited to the basics of *sex ed* as a function of nature and be void of the *sexuality* for quite some time.
 
Why do 5th graders need to know about lifestyles?

There are countless other *lifestyles* that aren't discussed, taught or talked about that aren't mentioned at all.

Why not Fetish, bondage, swinging and BDSM? I could write a year's curriculum around all those things - but I digress.

Theres *sex ed* and then there's *sexuality* . . . and I prefer my kids are limited to the basics of *sex ed* as a function of nature and be void of the *sexuality* for quite some time.

Hopefully, sex ed isn't just taught in 5th grade. And I completely understand keeping a 5th grade sex ed class specifically on biology. I wouldn't even advance giving 5th graders condoms. Sex ed should be age appropriate. High schoolers, which are mostly teenagers 14-18, should get taught that there are different sexualities in sex ed. High school is generally where most people start recognizing who they are attracted to, not just going by what they are taught. If a person truly feels like they are sinning by being attracted to someone of the same sex as themself, then that is their choice. But it should be included in HS sex ed classes that there are some people who are attracted to members of their own sex and that there are people who are attracted to members of both sexes. Acting as if other sexualities besides heterosexuality are fetishes and/or should be ignored, adds to the problems. Especially if you consider the highest at-risk group for AIDS is homosexual men. If these homosexual men felt more included in safe sex practice discussions as teenagers, maybe more of them would take it to heart and practice regular safe sex.
 
Hopefully, sex ed isn't just taught in 5th grade. And I completely understand keeping a 5th grade sex ed class specifically on biology. I wouldn't even advance giving 5th graders condoms. Sex ed should be age appropriate. High schoolers, which are mostly teenagers 14-18, should get taught that there are different sexualities in sex ed. High school is generally where most people start recognizing who they are attracted to, not just going by what they are taught. If a person truly feels like they are sinning by being attracted to someone of the same sex as themself, then that is their choice. But it should be included in HS sex ed classes that there are some people who are attracted to members of their own sex and that there are people who are attracted to members of both sexes. Acting as if other sexualities besides heterosexuality are fetishes and/or should be ignored, adds to the problems. Especially if you consider the highest at-risk group for AIDS is homosexual men. If these homosexual men felt more included in safe sex practice discussions as teenagers, maybe more of them would take it to heart and practice regular safe sex.

Yes - high school is very different than the traditional 5th/6th grade year at which children are first taught the basics of sex-ed.

I'm considering this early exposure with my view. I have no quandaries with lifestyles and *sexuality* being introduced *lightly* in those later years when it is pretty much *not* news to anyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom