• 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!

DA: sex ed could get teachers arrested

A comprehensive sex education program has been found to be the most effective method in preventing teenage pregnancy and STD's. Absintence only has been found to be less effective than this, as has NO sex education. The latter disproves the point that it should be left to the parents, only. When it is, it is not effective, as some parents do not do an adequate job. This effects society in general, with an increase in teenage pregnancy, STD's, folks with lower incomes, and abortions. I can think of no evidence that would convince me that this is not the most effective method towards assisting young people. And the assumption that this endorses sexual behavior is ridiculous. It TEACHES sex education, it does not teach values.
Why didn't we have rampant pregnancies during the Colonial Era?
 
Why didn't we have rampant pregnancies during the Colonial Era?

We did have teen pregnancies during the Colonial Era. Only back then we allowed teenagers to marry first.
 
We did have teen pregnancies during the Colonial Era. Only back then we allowed teenagers to marry first.
No one said we didn't have pregnancies, we're talking about it being a huge problem.
 
Education and endorsement are two very different things.

The information is presented in the context that teen sex is perfectly acceptable in every case. No regard is given to over-sexualized teens or other high-risk demographics. There is no cultural context for sexual activity given.

This is why sex-ed should be available at alternative 3rd party sources.
 
Actually, the better analogy would be, "Teens are gonna smoke, so let's give them some nicotine gum to quit."

You're saying that schools give out condoms to help teens stop having sex.

We're talking about education in the use of contraceptives for prevention in pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease. It's important to remember that.

See that you do, then.
 
Okay...seriously...is the assumption here that high school aged boys aren't going to be thinking about sex if they're not talked to about condoms?

REALLY?

No.

My argument is that the information should be given in the proper cultural context, and that this is something the public school is incapable of doing.

There is no requirement that the class be held in a public school building, by public school teachers.

Sex-ed is certainly important, but there is no room for it in the public school. 3rd party alternatives are required to give the information while accounting for cultural and social diversity.
 
A comprehensive sex education program has been found to be the most effective method in preventing teenage pregnancy and STD's. Absintence only has been found to be less effective than this, as has NO sex education. The latter disproves the point that it should be left to the parents, only. When it is, it is not effective, as some parents do not do an adequate job. This effects society in general, with an increase in teenage pregnancy, STD's, folks with lower incomes, and abortions. I can think of no evidence that would convince me that this is not the most effective method towards assisting young people. And the assumption that this endorses sexual behavior is ridiculous. It TEACHES sex education, it does not teach values.

There are more options then public school sex-ed or abstinence only.

Besides, the reason former studies showed no positive effect of abstinence-only programs is because those studies did not account for functional/dysfunctional homes. A later study (which I don't have handy but would be happy to dig up if you would like) showed that sex-ed programs made no significant change, positively or negatively, on children from either home style. Children from functional homes were less likely to have sex as early whether they had sex-ed or not. Children from dysfunctional homes were more likely to have sex early (and abuse drugs, and commit crime, and run away, and commit suicide, etc) whether they had sex-ed or not.

Hen you say "teens are going to do it anyway", you are dismissing the cause of the behavior, you are ignoring the problem.

Accepting the premise "teens are going to do it anyway" is giving up on ever doing anything about improving family cohesion and viability.

Teens are far less likely to "do it anyway" if those teens come from stable homes. Teens are much more likely to "do it anyway" if they come from dysfunctional homes.

Public sex-ed does not address the problem driving teen sex, STDs and teen pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
Why didn't we have rampant pregnancies during the Colonial Era?

Fathers were allowed to shoot the boy if he A. got her pregnant, or B. did not subsequently marry her.

If you want to act like an adult, then we're going to hold you to adult responsibility, and that means providing for your children.
 
Oh so because you were dumb and got a girl pregnant, other kids shouldn't have reasonable sex education to help prevent your mistakes from happening to them.

I'm not going to return fire because our friendship is more important to me then winning some petty debate here.
 
No one said we didn't have pregnancies, we're talking about it being a huge problem.

Personally, I don't think it's as big as a problem others make it out to be.
 
You're saying that schools give out condoms to help teens stop having sex.

Well, what I'm trying to say is that schools should teach teenager how contraceptives work so they won't have an unwanted pregnancy and know how to have sex while lowering the risk of STDs when they become adults. I won't bother with an analogy for that, though.
 
Well, what I'm trying to say is that schools should teach teenager how contraceptives work so they won't have an unwanted pregnancy and know how to have sex while lowering the risk of STDs when they become adults. I won't bother with an analogy for that, though.

I take little or no issue with the content of age-appropriate programs.

I take issue with the context in which they're presented.
 
I do not send my kids to school to learn how to roll a condom on their/his penis.

What's next? How to give a blow job without scraping your teeth and causing a potential infection?

Gimme a break. School was not meant for this. American children by and large are just plain stupid. I interview people regularly that just leave me shaking my head about how ridiculously uneducated they are at such an advanced age. THAT is the bigger problem.
And your solution is to stop the education...
Typical conservative.:spin:
 
That's the underlying message, even if not intentional.

"We know kids will be kids and we all do it, so here, use this and it'll all be okay."

That's what the kids hear in their teenage minds.

Firstly, it's NOT the underlying message. Maybe it is in YOUR head, but that is irrelevant. Secondly, teenagers will hear what teenagers will hear. That in no way precludes preventing them from receiving important information.
 
As opposed to ID/Creationism which is just; The Bible says it that means it must be true. In addition the scientific community hasnt declared Evolution theory being closed, it will probably be always an open and ever changing theory.

I like what you say here: and then I read your signature.

Why do you wish death on those you disagree with?

Cause I'm really sick and tired of the whole "enemy" thing.

If you disagree with me, you're my philosophical opponent. You're not my mortal enemy upon whom I wish death.

I'm just really, really freakin' sick of the death and war analogies in politics. This country is beginning to suck - less because of the government (which does really suck) than because the people here are acting like disagreement is the equivalent of a threat to one's life.
 
All schools should teach kids about sex just like they teach traffic safety and first aid. Sex ed should not be compulsory like all other subjects as the children whose parents will not sign the permission slip are likely to be the ones who knows the least about sex in the first place.

Sex ed should of course teach the biology about it all, the various means of contraception, and how to use them, tell about different ways of sexual practices and orientations, the emotions connected with sex and answer any sex-related questions the students might have. Handing out condoms is also a good idea since many teenagers are too embarrassed to buy them themselves.

A good way to do sex ed is to have guest teachers do it. When I was in high school we had two sex ed volunteers come and talk to us and it was really great. It was a man and a woman who were both in their 20's and it was much better than it would be to have our teachers who were at the age of our parents do it. They also taught us how to use a condom in the most obvious way possible; they gave each of us a condom and then passed a pink dildo around class where we had to put our condom on it. It was great fun and nobody became sexual predators for that cause.

What is so wrong about teenagers having sex? I don't get it. Sex is one of the few things that is both fun, healthy, and free. As long as everyone involved consents and respect each other's boundaries what harm can be done then? Inducing guilt in young people for having sex is far more harmful in my opinion.

When I have children one day I'll hope that they'll have lots of good sex once they feel ready for it.:)
 
All schools should teach kids about sex just like they teach traffic safety and first aid. Sex ed should not be compulsory like all other subjects as the children whose parents will not sign the permission slip are likely to be the ones who knows the least about sex in the first place.

Sex ed should of course teach the biology about it all, the various means of contraception, and how to use them, tell about different ways of sexual practices and orientations, the emotions connected with sex and answer any sex-related questions the students might have. Handing out condoms is also a good idea since many teenagers are too embarrassed to buy them themselves.

A good way to do sex ed is to have guest teachers do it. When I was in high school we had two sex ed volunteers come and talk to us and it was really great. It was a man and a woman who were both in their 20's and it was much better than it would be to have our teachers who were at the age of our parents do it. They also taught us how to use a condom in the most obvious way possible; they gave each of us a condom and then passed a pink dildo around class where we had to put our condom on it. It was great fun and nobody became sexual predators for that cause.

What is so wrong about teenagers having sex? I don't get it. Sex is one of the few things that is both fun, healthy, and free. As long as everyone involved consents and respect each other's boundaries what harm can be done then? Inducing guilt in young people for having sex is far more harmful in my opinion.

When I have children one day I'll hope that they'll have lots of good sex once they feel ready for it.:)

Personally I'm willing to oppose all forms of sex-ed until gun safety is included.

If safety is our concern, then there's no reason to leave guns out.
 
I'm not going to return fire because our friendship is more important to me then winning some petty debate here.

That wasn't a "shot". I just repeated your own argument back to you. Just in less flowery terms.

You're getting soft on me. It's no fun if you don't fight back. :poke
 
I think it's time for that DA to be removed from office. His license needs to be cancelled. He's clearly a bible-thumping quack crackpot.
 
The information is presented in the context that teen sex is perfectly acceptable in every case. No regard is given to over-sexualized teens or other high-risk demographics. There is no cultural context for sexual activity given.

This is why sex-ed should be available at alternative 3rd party sources.

In bold. No it isn't. Please provide evidence of this if you believe so... and remember, you used the statement "is perfectly acceptable in EVERY case" an absolute.
 
There are more options then public school sex-ed or abstinence only.

Besides, the reason former studies showed no positive effect of abstinence-only programs is because those studies did not account for functional/dysfunctional homes. A later study (which I don't have handy but would be happy to dig up if you would like) showed that sex-ed programs made no significant change, positively or negatively, on children from either home style. Children from functional homes were less likely to have sex as early whether they had sex-ed or not. Children from dysfunctional homes were more likely to have sex early (and abuse drugs, and commit crime, and run away, and commit suicide, etc) whether they had sex-ed or not.

Hen you say "teens are going to do it anyway", you are dismissing the cause of the behavior, you are ignoring the problem.

Accepting the premise "teens are going to do it anyway" is giving up on ever doing anything about improving family cohesion and viability.

Teens are far less likely to "do it anyway" if those teens come from stable homes. Teens are much more likely to "do it anyway" if they come from dysfunctional homes.

Public sex-ed does not address the problem driving teen sex, STDs and teen pregnancy.

You are presenting an argument that I never made. Quote where I said that "teens are going to do it anyway" and used this to support my position. Also, you are presenting YOUR opinion of how public schools teach sex ed. From what I have seen, that perception is completely false.

And yes, I'd like to see the study. I seem to remember it, too, and though the differences were smaller, I seem to remember there STILL being differences between the two.
 
I take little or no issue with the content of age-appropriate programs.

I take issue with the context in which they're presented.

Yet you've offered no evidence that the context is problematic.
 
Personally I'm willing to oppose all forms of sex-ed until gun safety is included.

If safety is our concern, then there's no reason to leave guns out.

That sounds like "pork" to me. These two issues are not related, and you seem to be adding it because it is a "pet" issue of yours. Do you object to driver's ed.? That is a safety issue, too.

Not everyone encounters guns in their lives. A far greater majority encounter sex. I have no problem with your proposal; in fact I agree with it. But connecting it to sex ed, is just ridiculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom