• 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?

  • Yes, its important for their future safety.

    Votes: 16 42.1%

  • No, this sort of thing should not be encouraged.

    Votes: 22 57.9%
  • Total voters
    38
Grateful Heart said:
I think I understand what you're trying to say here. I think you're making a distinction between teaching about the micro level mechanics of reproduction such as egg, sperm, zygote and so on, versus the teaching of the macro level mechanics of reproduction, which might be described as 'insert peg A into slot B.' Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

No. The physical act of intercourse is part of the biological process.

But some people here are talking about teaching kids the "right way" to have sex. That's not what it should be about.

And I don't see how gay sex fits in at all.
 
Harshaw said:
No. The physical act of intercourse is part of the biological process.

But some people here are talking about teaching kids the "right way" to have sex. That's not what it should be about.

And I don't see how gay sex fits in at all.
Click to expand...

How about masturbation? Does that fit into the curriculum? Why or why not?

:2razz:
 
Grateful Heart said:
How about masturbation? Does that fit into the curriculum? Why or why not?

:2razz:
Click to expand...

I suppose you could make some argument for a passing mention just to define the term, but not really. There's no risk in anyone exploring that on their own.
 
Harshaw said:
I suppose you could make some argument for a passing mention just to define the term, but not really. There's no risk in anyone exploring that on their own.
Click to expand...

I'm a little uncertain about your argument here. It sounds like you're suggesting that sex-ed topics need to be evaluated by the level of 'risk' involved. And that masturbation is a 'little or no risk' activity.

Could you elaborate?

;)
 
Grateful Heart said:
I'm a little uncertain about your argument here. It sounds like you're suggesting that sex-ed topics need to be evaluated by the level of 'risk' involved. And that masturbation is a 'little or no risk' activity.

Could you elaborate?

;)
Click to expand...

What's confusing about it? Sex is an eminently personal thing. The justification for sex education in the school is that it's because students need to learn what it is and what the consequences may be; i.e., pregnancy and the transmittal of disease.

Anything beyond that and you're pushing social policy, not public health. You're out of science and into socialization. There's no pedagogical purpose.
 
Harshaw said:
No. The physical act of intercourse is part of the biological process.

But some people here are talking about teaching kids the "right way" to have sex. That's not what it should be about.

And I don't see how gay sex fits in at all.
Click to expand...

Who says its not the schools place to educate children about how adults have sex? Whats so morally wrong with that? I remember watching a virtualized video of it as a child, and at the time it was very informative and interesting and i dont see why it cannot continue to be so. The schools job is to educate us, teaching us how two grown adults have sex, and teaching us how sex is carried out, is not "wrong".
 
Harshaw said:
The justification for sex education in the school is that it's because students need to learn what it is and what the consequences may be; i.e., pregnancy and the transmittal of disease.
Click to expand...

Which diseases do you feel need to be taught? And what, specifically, would you recommend we teach about them?

??
 
kaya'08 said:
Who says its not the schools place to educate children about how adults have sex? Whats so morally wrong with that? I remember watching a virtualized video of it as a child, and at the time it was very informative and interesting and i dont see why it cannot continue to be so. The schools job is to educate us, teaching us how two grown adults have sex, and teaching us how sex is carried out, is not "wrong".
Click to expand...

This being a debate site where people state their opinions on matters such as this, I do.

(To say nothing of it being a POLL.)
 
Grateful Heart said:
Which diseases do you feel need to be taught? And what, specifically, would you recommend we teach about them?

??
Click to expand...

I'm sure you think you're being quite clever and quite Socratic, but this stuff isn't that complicated. Mention the most common ones and say how to protect against transmission. QED.
 
Harshaw said:
Mention the most common ones and say how to protect against transmission. QED.
Click to expand...

So you believe it's not only appropriate to teach the biology of reproduction as stated in your original post, but also methods to protect against STD transmission.

The most common and effective methods for STD prevention are abstinence and/or condom use. Should both of these methods be taught?

;)
 
Grateful Heart said:
So you believe it's not only appropriate to teach the biology of reproduction as stated in your original post, but also methods to protect against STD transmission.

The most common and effective methods for STD prevention are abstinence and/or condom use. Should both of these methods be taught?

;)
Click to expand...
Yes. We need to promote both abstinence and condom use. Abstinence-only sex education is a joke.
 
Grateful Heart said:
So you believe it's not only appropriate to teach the biology of reproduction as stated in your original post, but also methods to protect against STD transmission.
Click to expand...

Are you saying I'm changing what I said, or adding to it? I said this originally:

Harshaw said:
I also have no problem with covering STD prevention anymore than I do with teaching dental health.
Click to expand...

But you didn't quote that part when you quoted my post earlier.


The most common and effective methods for STD prevention are abstinence and/or condom use. Should both of these methods be taught?

;)
Click to expand...

Man, you are about as subtle as a jackhammer. :)

Why wouldn't they be?
 
Harshaw said:
Are you saying I'm changing what I said, or adding to it?
Click to expand...

I don't believe I've changed anything you said. Sorry if there was any confusion.

Man, you are about as subtle as a jackhammer. :)
Click to expand...

If trying to pin down exactly what it is you believe is being 'subtle' then I plead guilty. Because your posts do seem a bit ambigous at times, despite the use of exclamations such as quod erat demonstrandum.

Earlier you said:

Harshaw said:
When did "sex education" change from teaching students how reproduction works to teaching them how to have sex?
Click to expand...

The part I'm unclear about is where and how you make that distinction. For instance, you've indicated that you believe it's appropriate to teach about prevention of STD's. That would entail the use of condoms, wouldn't it? And wouldn't that fall under the 'how to have sex' as opposed to the category of how reproduction works?

And while they're on the topic of STDs, how do you propose they cover the issue of HIV and AIDS? Do you believe it's reasonable to have a substantive discussion of the risks of HIV without mentioning anal intercourse... either heterosexual or homosexual?

??
 
Look, I know that you're trying to maneuver me into some kind of trap wherein I reveal my Evangelical Christian prudishness and start pushing "abstinence only" or something, but it ain't gonna happen, because that ain't me.

I'm not going to write a course syllabus. I already explained the whats and whys. Sex education should 1) explain the biology of reproduction and 2) the prevention of pregnancy and the spreading of STDs. If there is to be clinical definitions of other types of sex, then fine. As a science and health course, it's fine. Beyond that, take Human Sexuality when you get to college, because it has no place in a middle school curriculum (which is where sex ed is generally taught).
 
Harshaw said:
Look, I know that you're trying to maneuver me into some kind of trap wherein I reveal my Evangelical Christian prudishness and start pushing "abstinence only" or something, but it ain't gonna happen, because that ain't me.

I'm not going to write a course syllabus. I already explained the whats and whys. Sex education should 1) explain the biology of reproduction and 2) the prevention of pregnancy and the spreading of STDs. If there is to be clinical definitions of other types of sex, then fine. As a science and health course, it's fine. Beyond that, take Human Sexuality when you get to college, because it has no place in a middle school curriculum (which is where sex ed is generally taught).
Click to expand...

I don't have any fundamental problem with the syllabus you just outlined. However, it seems somewhat inconsistent with this earlier comment:

Harshaw said:
And I don't see how gay sex fits in at all.
Click to expand...

Now you say a clinical definition of other types of sex is fine. If that's your opinion I think we're close to agreement. Although I think I'd probably allow a little more leeway for the discussion of values than you seem to want to permit.

Edit to add: We didn't get sex education in middle school when I was growing up. Other than the girls being pulled out in 5th grade for the menstruation lesson, I remember no discussion of sexual reproduction until the sophomore year in high school. I'm not sure what age they're starting these days... but I agree that whatever is taught should be age appropriate. In my opinion, by the time a student is 16 or 17... they are fully equipped to handle adult discussions.

:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I was talking about all sex. I've never had gay sex.
Click to expand...

Ok, good for you, what's your point?


When did "sex education" change from teaching students how reproduction works to teaching them how to have sex?
Click to expand...

It never did.
 
Tucker Case said:
Which one?

Me having sex or letting kids figure things out by trial and error?

I'm gonna say "Both"!
Click to expand...

mmm, i'd say that there are many things cant be under "trail and error", because once you try it you cant feel any error, timebeing ..
 
Cilogy said:
What about students who have "straight sex" and say the same thing?

Here's a reason: Education.

How else will students learn about it?
Click to expand...

That really depends on the type of the education : "Carrot or stick"
 
Grateful Heart said:
I don't have any fundamental problem with the syllabus you just outlined. However, it seems somewhat inconsistent with this earlier comment:
Click to expand...

It's not inconsistent. And a number of others from across the political spectrum have said the same thing in this thread, and were heavily thanked by many others still.


Now you say a clinical definition of other types of sex is fine. If that's your opinion I think we're close to agreement. Although I think I'd probably allow a little more leeway for the discussion of values than you seem to want to permit.
Click to expand...

"Values" aren't science.
 
Cilogy said:
Ok, good for you, what's your point?
Click to expand...

My point was responding to this:

Cilogy said:
Trial and error, 'cause if students are forced to use that method for gay sex, who's to say other students won't do the same concerning straight sex?
Click to expand...

Obviously, the above indicates that your were confused as to what type of sex I was referring to in my posts so I clarified it for you.


I would have thought that quoting the post I was responding to was enough to explain my point, but if you'd like further clarification than what was obvious, I could perhaps build you a diorama that illustrates the point further. Would that be helpful? :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I would have thought that quoting the post I was responding to was enough to explain my point, but if you'd like further clarification than what was obvious, I could perhaps build you a diorama that illustrates the point further. Would that be helpful? :2razz:
Click to expand...

Ok I understand, but don't you think trial and error, whether it is gay or straight, is wrong in some way? It could lead to illegal business (underage sex).
 
Cilogy said:
Ok I understand, but don't you think trial and error, whether it is gay or straight, is wrong in some way? It could lead to illegal business (underage sex).
Click to expand...

I was actually just making a joke with my first post about trial and error. Forgot the darn smiley. My bad on that.

But I will add that there is nothing on the planet that will "lead "to underage sex except being underage and wanting to have sex. What trial and error would lead to is a LOT more errors that result in babies and STD's.

I'm in favor of sex ed.
 
I think almost everyone learns sex by trial and error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom