• 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
Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok sorry. :)


Harshaw said:
I think almost everyone learns sex by trial and error.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's true.

I have learned more about how to have sex from friends and more about safety/biology of sex from school.
 
No. Schools shouldn't educate on oral, anal, or any other variations of sexual methods other then the single normal method that results in reproduction.

Now, what they can educate on is sexual emotions and attractions. They can acknowledge that being attracted to same-sex is as real as someone being attracted to the opposite-sex and that all resources about one can be sued for the other.

Students shouldn't be taught by their teachers that their possible homosexual feelings are wrong, illegal, or an abomination.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

The number of times your posts are thanked is no measure of their consistency. At first you said you didn't "see how gay sex fits in at all." Then you said that "if there are to be clinical definitions of other forms of sex, then fine." I don't see how those two points are consistent. The second is clearly very different from the first. Unless, of course, you exclude gay sex from the clinical teaching of 'other forms of sex.'


"Values" aren't science.
Click to expand...

Well of course they aren't. But I believe certain common values are necessary in the schools. Values such as courtesy, respect, integrity, patriotism, honesty, patience, and courage.

Are you suggesting that the public schools should be 'value-free' zones?

:confused:
 
Grateful Heart said:
The number of times your posts are thanked is no measure of their consistency. At first you said you didn't "see how gay sex fits in at all." Then you said that "if there are to be clinical definitions of other forms of sex, then fine." I don't see how those two points are consistent. The second is clearly very different from the first. Unless, of course, you exclude gay sex from the clinical teaching of 'other forms of sex.'




Well of course they aren't. But I believe certain common values are necessary in the schools. Values such as courtesy, respect, integrity, patriotism, honesty, patience, and courage.

Are you suggesting that the public schools should be 'value-free' zones?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Why patriotism at school?
 
Grateful Heart said:
The number of times your posts are thanked is no measure of their consistency. At first you said you didn't "see how gay sex fits in at all." Then you said that "if there are to be clinical definitions of other forms of sex, then fine." I don't see how those two points are consistent. The second is clearly very different from the first. Unless, of course, you exclude gay sex from the clinical teaching of 'other forms of sex.'
Click to expand...

These two, with whom I often disagree, summed the whole thing up pretty well:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057984728-post4.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057984728-post4.html

And one can mention clinical things like "anal sex" and "oral sex" without mentioning sexual orientation of any kind, because it doesn't even matter. Gay, straight, 5-6 people at the same time -- the concept is still the same.



Well of course they aren't. But I believe certain common values are necessary in the schools. Values such as courtesy, respect, integrity, patriotism, honesty, patience, and courage.

Are you suggesting that the public schools should be 'value-free' zones?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Ah. Going back to being clever and Socratic again. :roll: (Losing the "confused" smiley would make it far less obvious and you'd come across as far less condescending, by the way.)

I said that sex ed should be a science and health course. No, "values" in the sense you're using them don't enter into it.

I said nothing about what may or may not be appropriate for any other kind of class. (And, to save you from popping another emoticon into a post, no, I'm not going to go into them, either.)
 
Harshaw said:
And one can mention clinical things like "anal sex" and "oral sex" without mentioning sexual orientation of any kind, because it doesn't even matter.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that sexual orientation should not be mentioned?

Ah. Going back to being clever and Socratic again. :roll: (Losing the "confused" smiley would make it far less obvious and you'd come across as far less condescending, by the way.)
Click to expand...

The confused smiley is used because I find your posts confusing. It seems you keep trying to keep sexual orientation out of the curriculum. So let me ask you straight out to avoid further confusion....

Do you believe that public schools should introduce the subject of sexual orientation and/or homosexuality at any time in a sexual ed class, or any other class, for that matter, some time before HS graduation? If so, in what context? If not, why not?

??
 
kaya'08 said:
Why patriotism at school?
Click to expand...

I know some people find patriotism old-fashioned and out of style. Personally, I like the idea of the American flag flying in the public schools. And I like the idea of pictures of Washington, Lincoln and the current president hanging in the schools also (even if half of us can't stand whoever happens to be sitting in the White House at the moment.) I also think it's kind of neat for kids to learn about civics, community, and public service. And perhaps to recite the pledge of allegiance every so often. Just to remind them that they live in the greatest and freest country on earth.

;)
 
Grateful Heart said:
I know some people find patriotism old-fashioned and out of style. Personally, I like the idea of the American flag flying in the public schools.
Click to expand...

No your absolutely right. Patriotism, when not in its extreme, is a fantastic thing. Its patriotism that keeps countrymen together in hard times, and put men on the battlefield. Would your boys bother fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, if they had no patriotism for the US? Of course not. Its not old fashioned. Its a good thing. I was just trying to figure out what you meant by patriotism in school.

I also think it's kind of neat for kids to learn about civics, community, and public service. And perhaps to recite the pledge of allegiance every so often. Just to remind them that they live in the greatest and freest country on earth.
Click to expand...

...and national anthem. Anyway, thats reasonable;)
 
The confused smiley is used because I find your posts confusing. It seems you keep trying to keep sexual orientation out of the curriculum. So let me ask you straight out to avoid further confusion....
Click to expand...
Grateful, Harshaw's posts have been perfectly understood by myself and others. Why are you struggling with this so much?
 
Grateful Heart said:
So you're saying that sexual orientation should not be mentioned?

The confused smiley is used because I find your posts confusing. It seems you keep trying to keep sexual orientation out of the curriculum. So let me ask you straight out to avoid further confusion....

Do you believe that public schools should introduce the subject of sexual orientation and/or homosexuality at any time in a sexual ed class, or any other class, for that matter, some time before HS graduation? If so, in what context? If not, why not?

??
Click to expand...

At this point, you either understand what I"ve said (which I find likely), or you don't -- but it's all there in plain language, and I don't really feel like repeating it yet again. No one else seems to be having a problem.
 
EgoffTib said:
Grateful, Harshaw's posts have been perfectly understood by myself and others. Why are you struggling with this so much?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can explain this to me then if it's so clear to you...

Harshaw said:
And one can mention clinical things like "anal sex" and "oral sex" without mentioning sexual orientation of any kind, because it doesn't even matter. Gay, straight, 5-6 people at the same time -- the concept is still the same.
Click to expand...

Harshaw is willing to discuss 'anal sex' and 'oral sex' but then suggests 'sexual orientation' should not be mentioned.

Harshaw further states that sexual orientation 'doesn't even matter.'

The idea that sexual orientation 'doesn't matter' simply doesn't make sense, especially in the context of a sex ed class. Something that 'doesn't matter' is irrelevant... like the number of fleas on an elephant, for instance, or whether Michelle Obama prefers black olives or green olives. 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.

Finally, when I asked the direct question:

Do you believe that public schools should introduce the subject of sexual orientation and/or homosexuality at any time in a sexual ed class, or any other class, for that matter, some time before HS graduation? If so, in what context? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

...Harshaw punted.

If you understand Harshaw's assertion that sexual orientation 'doesn't matter'... I'll look forward to your thoughts.

;)
 
Last edited:
Grateful Heart said:
The idea that sexual orientation 'doesn't matter' simply doesn't make sense, especially in the context of a sex ed class. Something that 'doesn't matter' is irrelevant... like the number of fleas on an elephant, for instance, or whether Michelle Obama prefers black olives or green olives. 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.
Click to expand...

If you can find a sex act that's 100% exclusive to homosexuality, then point it out. Otherwise, sexual orientation does not matter to the purposes of sex ed as I laid them out.

If you're gonna stick your pen into any inkwell -- or let someone stick theirs into yours --straight, gay, or animal, make sure you're protected. That's all there is to it.

And really, if that's not clear enough, then, well, the problem is yours. :roll:
 
Harshaw said:
If you can find a sex act that's 100% exclusive to homosexuality, then point it out. Otherwise, sexual orientation does not matter to the purposes of sex ed as I laid them out.

If you're gonna stick your pen into any inkwell -- or let someone stick theirs into yours --straight, gay, or animal, make sure you're protected. That's all there is to it.

And really, if that's not clear enough, then, well, the problem is yours. :roll:
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty obvious what your position is, though you seem ambiguously cautious in you explanations of your rationale behind that position.

If it's true that sexual orientation 'does not matter,' as you say, then it follows that a discussion of it in the classroom might be pointless in your view... but also harmless. In other words, a waste of time, perhaps, but no transgression worth noting.

Is that your opinion?
 
stupid OP but great replies, atleast what i saw on first page, sans American
poll options sucked
question sucked
sex ed is a health issue, not a how to for dummies
 
find it rather sad how many voted in the poll, given the options, in particular the NO vote
 
DeeJayH said:
find it rather sad how many voted in the poll, given the options, in particular the NO vote
Click to expand...

Christ what other bloody options did you want?

No this sort of thing shouldnt be encouraged.

Yes, it is neccessary for there health.

Yes and No.

Maybe.

Sorta.

Other.

I dunno.

Dont moan about it, its a yes or no friggin question anyways.
 
kaya'08 said:
Christ what other bloody options did you want?

No this sort of thing shouldnt be encouraged.

Yes, it is neccessary for there health.

Yes and No.

Maybe.

Sorta.

Other.

I dunno.

Dont moan about it, its a yes or no friggin question anyways.
Click to expand...

The option could have been "No, sex ed isn't a 'how to' class, it's a health class."
 
kaya'08 said:
Christ what other bloody options did you want?

No this sort of thing shouldnt be encouraged.

Yes, it is neccessary for there health.

Yes and No.

Maybe.

Sorta.

Other.

I dunno.

Dont moan about it, its a yes or no friggin question anyways.
Click to expand...
and if you had made it a simple yes/no poll i would not have objected.
but you used qualifiers/descriptors, making neither answer acceptable because of the way you interjected your spin

in the simple yes/no question, my answer is NO
I will repeat, SexEd is about health/safety not a "how to"
 
DeeJayH said:
and if you had made it a simple yes/no poll i would not have objected.
but you used qualifiers/descriptors, making neither answer acceptable because of the way you interjected your spin

in the simple yes/no question, my answer is NO
I will repeat, SexEd is about health/safety not a "how to"
Click to expand...

I don't understand why people opposed to this always assume that the ONLY way to teach about gay sex is the "how to." This is wrong.

So I'm saying, don't make it a "how to," make it educational. I mean, schools don't make straight sex "how to" so why should teaching about gay sex be different in that sense?
 
But your poll answer choices are extremes. There's quite a bit of ground in between them.

You can have reasons for "yes" OR "no" which are completely different from the reasoning you supply. You can also have all sorts of shades of "maybe, if . . . "
 
Cilogy said:
I don't understand why people opposed to this always assume that the ONLY way to teach about gay sex is the "how to." This is wrong.

So I'm saying, don't make it a "how to," make it educational. I mean, schools don't make straight sex "how to" so why should teaching about gay sex be different in that sense?
Click to expand...
how to apply a condom does not change just because you are putting it in a va jay jay or a guys ass
how to use the pill does not change just because you munch carpet or ride the baloney pony
the type of STDs does not change just because of your sexual orientation

gay, lesbian or straight has no bearing on what should be taught in sex ed
health & safety
point is they do not have to promote or discriminate against straights/gays/lesbians to teach sex ed
 
DeeJayH said:
how to apply a condom does not change just because you are putting it in a va jay jay or a guys ass
how to use the pill does not change just because you munch carpet or ride the baloney pony
the type of STDs does not change just because of your sexual orientation

gay, lesbian or straight has no bearing on what should be taught in sex ed
health & safety
point is they do not have to promote or discriminate against straights/gays/lesbians to teach sex ed
Click to expand...

Ok, exactly, so let's NOT discriminate and go ahead and add it to education.
 
DeeJayH said:
gay, lesbian or straight has no bearing on what should be taught in sex ed health & safety
Click to expand...

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:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom