• 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:
At least you're allowing for the acknowledgment of homosexuals in a classroom discussion. I'm open to discussion about what type of information could or should be explained regarding sexual orientation. I think in a sex ed class the very minimum that should be taught is that there is such a thing as sexual orientation and that some minority of the population identifies as homosexual or bisexual. To refuse to acknowledge those basic facts is absurd.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

I never said they should not be talked about. I've simply stated it should be kept to a minimum and the majority should be talked about not actively focusing on the relationship itself as much as the act. That it should not be made out to be something that is bad or evil but also not shown as something completely normal on par with the amount of straight people and that something every child should consider or experiment with to see if they feel that way.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wrong.

The root cause of danger there is crossing the street, with the variable being how often the car is there.
Click to expand...

How often the car is there is not just the variable. It's the key variable. To ignore that variable would be nonsensical.

And the key variable in the danger of anal sex is how often the HIV virus is there. We know where the HIV virus is found most often. The virus is found on certain 'roads' much more often than other 'roads.' To ignore that would be nonsensical.


:2wave:
 
Zyphlin said:
I never said they should not be talked about. I've simply stated it should be kept to a minimum and the majority should be talked about not actively focusing on the relationship itself as much as the act. That it should not be made out to be something that is bad or evil but also not shown as something completely normal on par with the amount of straight people and that something every child should consider or experiment with to see if they feel that way.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no problem with that position.

:2wave:
 
Harshaw said:
If you don't mention any sexual orientation, how is it "let's teach this subject but not this"? Neither is "taught."
Click to expand...

Wait, you're confusing me. Are you for or against making it part of education?
 
Cilogy said:
Wait, you're confusing me. Are you for or against making it part of education?
Click to expand...

The argument that poster was making is that sexual orientation should be kept 'hush hush.' Undisclosed, unmentionable, in the closet.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Apparently the idea of sexual orientation is too controversial, or too sensitive, or simply too advanced a concept for high school students to tackle. Either that, or if sexual orientation is mentioned, they'll all want to run right home and experiment with it for themselves.

We're left guessing since most of these posters don't feel any need to explain their reasons for keeping sexual orientation off limits in the classroom.

This whole thread reminds me of those wonderful 1950s TV shows where the mother and father always slept in separate twin beds. If you ignore something, it doesn't exist, right?

:rofl
 
No, that in fact was NOT what I was saying, but it's what you kept trying to maneuver me into saying. I just didn't play ball. Too bad. :2wave:

So, here's the question, just so we're all on the same page . . .

In the context of this poll question, what does "teaching gay sex" mean, and how does it differ from what sex ed classes are at present?

Be specific. Because I see a lot of people proceeding from very different assumptions as to what it means.
 
Harshaw said:
No, that in fact was NOT what I was saying, but it's what you kept trying to maneuver me into saying. I just didn't play ball. Too bad. :2wave:

So, here's the question, just so we're all on the same page . . .

In the context of this poll question, what does "teaching gay sex" mean, and how does it differ from what sex ed classes are at present?

Be specific. Because I see a lot of people proceeding from very different assumptions as to what it means.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I never responded to the poll question because I didn't think it made sense. My participation in this thread wasn't based on the premise that the poll question made sense. I chose to discuss this issue with you in particular because you strike me as a poster who tends to make sense. Unlike some others whose posts tend to wander around in circles.

My questions to you had nothing to do with teaching 'gay sex.' My question to you was and still is the following:

Do you believe that sexual orientation or homosexuality should ever be discussed in the public school classroom? If so, in what context? If not, why not?

That question does not 'maneuver' you into any position. It forces you into no box. You are free to answer in any way you see fit. We might even find some common ground for agreement. I don't know at this point. Because you've yet to answer that question.

;)
 
Good grief.

Why is it that the two of you are the only ones who are having any problem understanding what I've said, especially when so many others have said the exact same thing?

HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE CLEAR TO YOU NOW:

CAN YOU DEFINE HOMOSEXUALITY CLINICALLY?

YES.

DID I SAY THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH TEACHING CLINICAL DEFINITIONS IN A SCIENCE AND HEALTH COURSE?

YES.

DO YOU HAVE TO DEFINE ANY PARTICULAR SEX ACT AS HOMOSEXUAL OR HETEROSEXUAL?

NO.

CAN YOU COVER EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE COVERED WITHOUT CALLING ANY SEX ACT HETEROSEXUAL OR HOMOSEXUAL?

YES.

WOULD THERE BE ANY PURPOSE TO CALLING ANY PARTICULAR SEX ACT HETEROSEXUAL OR HOMOSEXUAL?

IN A SCIENCE AND HEALTH COURSE, NO.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?
 
I would simply like to note that education does not equal "encouragement", as this poll seems to suggest.


Duke
 
Harshaw said:
DO YOU GET IT NOW?
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying those points. I'd like to go back and compare that to an earlier post of yours in response to my question regarding teaching about masturbation. You responded as follows:

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...

Your answer there was quite specific... you said there was 'no risk' in anyone exploring masturbation. What did you mean by that?

.
 
Grateful Heart said:
Thanks for clarifying those points. I'd like to go back and compare that to an earlier post of yours in response to my question regarding teaching about masturbation. You responded as follows:



Your answer there was quite specific... you said there was 'no risk' in anyone exploring masturbation. What did you mean by that?

.
Click to expand...
must....find...another...way....to...twist....harshaws.....views....aaarrrggghhh
 
DeeJayH said:
must....find...another...way....to...twist....harshaws.....views....aaarrrggghhh
Click to expand...

It IS rather stalker-ish, isn't it? Kinda creepy.
 
DeeJayH said:
must....find...another...way....to...twist....harshaws.....views....aaarrrggghhh
Click to expand...

There's no twisting going here at all. I've been looking forward to an open discussion about this issue with anyone who cares to participate. And asking questions about the meaning of specific posts is a reasonable way to carry on the discussion.

If you'd prefer to participate in the discussion that's fine. If you'd prefer to sit in the grandstands and shout that's fine as well.

;)
 
Harshaw said:
It IS rather stalker-ish, isn't it? Kinda creepy.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you feel that way. We can cut this off any time you'd like. I thought I touched on this earlier here:

Grateful Heart said:
Quite frankly, I never responded to the poll question because I didn't think it made sense. My participation in this thread wasn't based on the premise that the poll question made sense. I chose to discuss this issue with you in particular because you strike me as a poster who tends to make sense. Unlike some others whose posts tend to wander around in circles.
Click to expand...

:2wave:
 
Grateful Heart said:
Your answer there was quite specific... you said there was 'no risk' in anyone exploring masturbation. What did you mean by that?
Click to expand...

You asked me that before, specifically, and I already answered, specifically. If you went back to find that post, then you should have found the answer.

So, since you're not going to give up stalking me, and you keep trying to lead me to a conclusion:

The argument that poster was making is that sexual orientation should be kept 'hush hush.' Undisclosed, unmentionable, in the closet.
Click to expand...

. . . why don't you cut the crap and make your point? Where does this Socratic road end?
 
Grateful Heart said:
I'm sorry if you feel that way. We can cut this off any time you'd like. I thought I touched on this earlier here:



:2wave:
Click to expand...

I "make sense," yet you'd have everyone believe that what I post is "confusing"?
 
Harshaw said:
I "make sense," yet you'd have everyone believe that what I post is "confusing"?
Click to expand...

Ok here's what I say:

Schools should have the ability to "define" gay sex FOR students. My main point was that if students ask about gay sex in school, why should it be ignored? Why not make it part of the sex-ed class, even if it's just a small part. Schools teach about nearly everything else, why leave it out?

That was my main question.
 
Harshaw said:
You asked me that before, specifically, and I already answered, specifically. If you went back to find that post, then you should have found the answer.
Click to expand...

You're correct you did answer. Let's go back and look at that answer:

Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

First you claimed that mentioning masturbation might be mentioned 'in passing' because there is 'no risk' in a student exploring it.

In clarifying this position, you claimed that sex is a 'personal thing.' Then you said that students need to 'learn what it is and what the consequences of it might be.' Then you expressed concerns about pushing 'social policy.'

None of that really addressed why teaching about masturbation is 'no risk.'

My conclusion from that is that you'd prefer to minimize information in the classroom that you view might lead to 'high risk' activities. The higher the risk involved if a student engages in it, the less information ought to be provided. And your reasoning for this is because to do otherwise would be pushing social policy.

Have I misrepresented that position?

..
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
. . . why don't you cut the crap and make your point? Where does this Socratic road end?
Click to expand...

I believe that more information is better than less information. And when there is an argument that less information is better, or that certain information ought to be limited or withheld, then I think the onus is on those who want to restrict that information to explain, in detail, what benefit they see from limiting that information.

Your explanation about limiting the discussion of masturbation was particularly obtuse. You made reference at the end to 'pushing social policy.' I don't see any clear correlation between masturbation and any social policy. Though I do see quite a bit of correlation between homosexuality and social policy in this country.

..
 
Grateful Heart said:
You're correct you did answer. Let's go back and look at that answer:



First you claimed that mentioning masturbation might be mentioned 'in passing' because there is 'no risk' in a student exploring it.

In clarifying this position, you claimed that sex is a 'personal thing.' Then you said that students need to 'learn what it is and what the consequences of it might be.' Then you expressed concerns about pushing 'social policy.'

None of that really addressed why teaching about masturbation is 'no risk.'

My conclusion from that is that you'd prefer to minimize information in the classroom that you view might lead to 'high risk' activities. The higher the risk involved if a student engages in it, the less information ought to be provided. And your reasoning for this is because to do otherwise would be pushing social policy.

Have I misrepresented that position?
Click to expand...

Yes, you have. :roll: The "no risk" part had to do with students masturbating, not being taught masturbation.

Sex with others is a risky activity because of the possibility of pregnancy and the spread of disease.

Masturbation is not. A student exploring masturbation on his/her own isn't at any health risk. Thus, there's nothing in particular about it which warrants more than a passing, clinical mention.
 
Cilogy said:
Ok here's what I say:

Schools should have the ability to "define" gay sex FOR students. My main point was that if students ask about gay sex in school, why should it be ignored? Why not make it part of the sex-ed class, even if it's just a small part. Schools teach about nearly everything else, why leave it out?

That was my main question.
Click to expand...

OK, but what, in this context, is "gay sex"? Are you asking about merely defining homosexuality in literal terms, or are you talking about something else?
 
Harshaw said:
Yes, you have. :roll: The "no risk" part had to do with students masturbating, not being taught masturbation.

Sex with others is a risky activity because of the possibility of pregnancy and the spread of disease.

Masturbation is not. A student exploring masturbation on his/her own isn't at any health risk. Thus, there's nothing in particular about it which warrants more than a passing, clinical mention.
Click to expand...

I agree with this in principle. In a discussion of risk, we want to emphasize those activities which would be of greatest risk and have the greatest consequences. Which is why I've argued all along that it's so critical to explain the high risk of male-male anal intercourse.

Some have made the case that it's sufficient to explain that anal intercourse is risky, while leaving out the very obvious fact that homosexual anal intercourse is far more risky than heterosexual anal intercourse. I didn't find any of those arguments convincing.

As far as masturbation goes... I'm not sure I agree that it need only be mentioned in passing. In fact, I think if we examine the 'social policy' aspect of masturbation, it might even be beneficial to encourage it.

;)
 
Grateful Heart said:
I agree with this in principle. In a discussion of risk, we want to emphasize those activities which would be of greatest risk and have the greatest consequences. Which is why I've argued all along that it's so critical to explain the high risk of male-male anal intercourse.

Some have made the case that it's sufficient to explain that anal intercourse is risky, while leaving out the very obvious fact that homosexual anal intercourse is far more risky than heterosexual anal intercourse. I didn't find any of those arguments convincing.

As far as masturbation goes... I'm not sure I agree that it need only be mentioned in passing. In fact, I think if we examine the 'social policy' aspect of masturbation, it might even be beneficial to encourage it.

;)
Click to expand...

so you want to tell a confused gay kid, who is having trouble coming out of the closet, and being comfortable with his sexuality, that not only is anal sex is risky, but if you perform MSM anal sex its very VERY VERY risky
how about you wheel in a guy dying from AIDS to drive home your enlightened education :roll:
 
DeeJayH said:
so you want to tell a confused gay kid, who is having trouble coming out of the closet, and being comfortable with his sexuality, that not only is anal sex is risky, but if you perform MSM anal sex its very VERY VERY risky
how about you wheel in a guy dying from AIDS to drive home your enlightened education :roll:
Click to expand...

As a gay teen in school, I was most confused and concerned because homosexuality was never spoken about. I think if there'd been an open discussion about sexual orientation I might have been less confused about the whole thing. And I think a healthy discussion in the classroom about AIDS would be a good counter-balance to any misinformation these students might have gotten elsewhere. Face it, by the time teens hit sex ed most of them have already got some knowledge about sex. Many have already experimented to some extent or another. The goal is to make sure the knowledge they have is accurate and useful and will help them make appropriate choices.

..
 
If you want to have a gay class, then have it separate. I don't see any need in having everyone come in there and have to listen to a lecture on homosexuality. I don't want my 11 year old listening to this. I'm sorry, but as a parent, that's the way it is. Nothing personal, but I have certain things that I don't want my children purposefully exposed to. TV and other media are enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom