Again, thanks for the unnecessary info about what constitutes as gay sex, but gay sex still fits into the health and safety categories because of AIDS and all that "fun stuff."
What EXACTLY are these specific "fun stuff" that is so different in regards to health and safety for gays than straights?
I've never seen any study that says biologicaly gays are more prone to get AIDS than straight people. Perhaps you can fill me in?
What would we think if a 17 or 18-y/o student graduated from the public school and did not know the meaning of the word fetish, or the word bestiality, or pedophilia, or could not explain the difference between a transexual and a bisexual individual?
I didn't learn about what the word "Fetish" means from school, nor "beastiality" or "pedophilia". I learned it in general from society, parents, peers, television, and the internet. I don't remember a class in school with teachers going "And some people find themselves sexually attracted to animals and thus engage in beastiality".
Pedohpila would be the closest of those I learned in school, and that wasn't so much the term as it was safety things as a kid that you later realize is because of child touchers.
In terms of bisexuality or transexual, personally I feel that is more of a biological thing. I don't have an issue explaining that there are people that find themselves attracted to the same sex, or both sexes. I don't have any issues talking about the scientific fact that some people are born transexual. I think those that just "choose" to change their sex don't need to be discussed, but again, this comes up through social upbringing I believe. The difference is you can speak about them in a general way without giving moral decisions on them as being "normal", "abnormal", etc. At best, it can be stated that they're uncommon, which is factually true and morally ambiguous.
Would we find that a good thing or would we think their education had suffered somewhere along the way?
I wouldn't find it a "good" thing, and I'd think there's something likely wrong with the kid in regards to his social and family life had he never even heard of the words or what they mean. Education, in regards to scholastic education, would be one of the last things I'd blame for it.
Should a student understand the meaning of sexual abuse and/or rape?
Sexual abuse and rape are both things that are against the law, so its outside what Celtic talks about in regards to "morals" being taught. It'd also fall into the health and safety realm of things.
I disagree, they are not teaching heterosexual behavior, but reproduction. Getting into heterosexual vs homosexual is political.
What does that have anything to do with what you responded to. You stated your opposition to talking about gay sex because they won't "stop there" and will keep pushing till homosexuality is taught as normal and completely acceptable. I stated that the slippery slope, saying that if we allow them to talk about gay sex that they'll eventually try to make them teach that homosexuality is normal and perfectly fine, is not a legitimate argument.
How do you "disagree" with that context based on them not teaching heterosexual behavior.
Or are you suggesting we teach children that the only time anyone engages in sexual activity is with the express intent to reproduce?
) but these people were flaky, with a history of abuse, so I don't really know what's up with them.
