@draug : 'The opt out is all I ask for. Some places make it required curriculum. There is no opt out. *That* is the violation of the first amendment. I know parents who have pulled their kids from school and eithe rhome school them or send them to private school because public education violates their first amendment rights'

That is a grey area i'm willing to delve into; at least here i have a lot of sympathy for your position. And the debate of government versus private life. Similarily with abortion education.

However for a class on evolution i would prefer no opt-out existed; and there is no public health question in this case at all. (though i'm also fine with comparative religion classes talking about creation mythes - perhaps there should be a half day each wrrk dedicated to untestable subjects; where you could- for example - invite local ministers to debate their creation mythes/theological differences, or lets say local sex workers to talk about their industry, or drug users, rock stars and job creators ~ to tell the school goers what they want in an employee)

It's always better to be more educated than less, unless you live in Oceania and "ignorance is wisdom".
I fully support sex education that explains to students the various issues of having sex.
For example:
1. Explain the various methods of contraception (e.g. condoms, diaphragms, pills, morning-after pills, coils, vasectomy). The success rates and impacts must be mentioned clearly.
2. Moral implications of sex. Sex involves more than the act of copulation, and the significance of a sexual relationship must be told.
3. What if the unthinkable happens. Students must be told how to fix the mess if conception happens. They should hear about opportunities for counselling, abortion, care, and other things regarding pregnancy.

Not giving the younger generation a good sex education is removing their ability to make intelligent decisions. Sure, they may fuck anyway, but at least if you explain to them what it entails, they may have second thoughts, or they may be able to do it in a safe way, or at least know what to do if they mess up.

'2. Moral implications of sex. Sex involves more than the act of copulation, and the significance of a sexual relationship must be told.'

Em, to be honest, sex isn't that big a deal anyway. Waaaay overrated. How and Ever, sex and love are like wine and cheese. They are good on their own but better together.

Teaching students not to be inconsiderate assholes if the choose to have sex is an important moral aspect to it. You might also point out that sex without emotion is just about the same as masturbation (you're only in it for your own pleasure...) but that ignores the reputation or 'coolness' of having sex (in male culture) and i don't know how to educate that away...

I personally beleive that middle-school children need to learn not only the facts of human reproduction, but a basic knowledge of the mechanics of sex, as well as the true information (pros and cons, with statistics) on both abstinence and contraception. However, what we find in many schools today is a sexualization of younger and younger children, which is just plain wrongheaded. In California, for example, from kindergarten on, public high school classes are now required *by legislation* to include information about gays and lesbians in *each* subject of the curriculum--and this at a time in their young lives when they should not even be aware of sexuality. "If Joe has three boyfriends and two of them leave him, how many new boyfriends will he have to find in order to feel better?" Well that's an exaggeration, of course, but it expresses my feelings on the subject.

Also, ora, you should realize I'm not actually against sex ed. I think it is good to teach kids whose parent's have no qualms about protecting themselves. They are going to do it. And while not 100% effective, condoms and the pill are better than unprotected sex with condoms having the added protection from STDs.

But I am against government telling parents what must be taught to their kids if it is coutner to the parent's beliefs. I may not hold the same beliefs, but I will defend their right to hold them.

P. S. Orathaic, I object to the title of this thread. It evinces a definite bias.

Well, ora is young yet and will see that this isn't a black and white world in time. there are ignorant religious zealots, but not all religious people are ingorant. He just hasn't figured that out.

@mujus, i am certianly biased against ignorance within religious organisations.

That is not to imply a causal relationship or tar all religious people/teachings as ignorant.

@Draug: ok, then justify this : 'Passing any requirement that safe sex be taught as a required part of the curriculum is a violation of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion.' - forcing children to behave in a way would indeed some expression of religion and infringe on their freedom.

Only an ignorant religion prescribes no knowledge of the temptations and dangers which exist, or the means to protect against them. And while such ignorance may exist, i don't know of any religion (as opposed to parents) which have some strict underlying rules regarding what children know about religion.

I'd be less concerned about government infringing on any religious rights than i am on taking power from parents who should be the focus of the child rearing.

I agree Jaime leave out abstinence as well. Teaching at school beyond the biology with the insinuation of psychiatric science, researched authority, or official knowledge is a misrepresentation. The exposure of Kinsey as a total fraud should have ended sex education beyond the biological baseline immediately.

Thanks draug, would you like to point out wjere i said all religious People were ignorant zealots, or would you like to give me the bemefit of the doubt and havr a mature conversation? Just wondering because apparently ones of us needs to grow up.

@ora - OK, I guess is was a cheap shot of sorts, but you must admit your title doesn't leave room for ano but the two posibilities. There are religious people who would rather not have their children taught how to put on a condom who don't have to be followers of "ignorant religiousity". And those are your exact words.

@ora - reading further, you once again overlook that fact that teaching the bodily functions and dangers inhernet in sex should be required. I said teaching safe sex specifically (meaning not including abstinence as a viable alternative) should not be required curriculum. It's like teaching evolution in science, requiring attendance of that class, *and* then banning philosophy classes from teaching creationism.

Again, I'm an evolutionist, but when we take away one groups rights, it's the first step to taking away all rights.

@Emacs, sex ed should not be a biology class. Though they should certainly cover sexual reproduction in biology, along with asexual reproduction and symbiotic pollinisation of plant/insect or plant/animal complex reproduction strategies..

Sex ed should be about empowering young people to make informed decisions so they don't risk public health (and their own) So they can act as responcible members of society and they are neither exploited nor exploit others.

It's like the right to bear arms, if everyone is armed with sex ed knowledge then everyone in society is safer.

And ora - The religious rights *are* the parent's rights. When we are talking children who aren't even held accountable as adults if they commit adult crimes and yet their parent's can be if the children become repeat offenders, then the parent's have a right to bring up their children in their chosen religion if they think it will improve the child's overall well being. So freedom of religion and parental rights meet and converge here.

@ora - No, it isn't like the right to bear arms. Teens havign sex does not endanger me at all. Teens getting STDs deas not endanger me. Teens having babies might inconvenience me, but does not endanger me.

But requiring everyone to have a gun does endanger me.

More to the point, a right to bear arms is not an obligation nor does it imply a requirement to be educated in gun handling if you don't intend to handle the gun. People whose rights I am attempting to defend here do not intend for their kids to "handle their guns" so having a "gun handling course" for their kids is not necessary. And seeing as their son's "guns" don't exactly have the ability to endanger me (it has to endanger me if training them somehow makes me safer).

'but you must admit your title doesn't leave room for ano but the two posibilities.'

That i freely admit, i'm looking at an arguement between a specific small but vocal minority and public policy advocates.

I hope the phrase 'ignorant religiosity' imples that there can be other kinds of religiosity, and this is the only kind i have a problem with.

I'd be fine with an opt-out from the practical side of 'condom use' or making it an optional extra (ie an opt-in) So long as the statistics are presented.

And i think, we are agreed that there is some minimum level of education and beyond that an option (opt-in or opt-out... It's a bit grey area, i'm not going to claim to know the ideal solution within this area...)

'More to the point, a right to bear arms is not an obligation nor does it imply a requirement to be educated in gun handling if you don't intend to handle the gun.'

Jusy as sex ed doesn't require a practial element where students have sex...

I don't follow. How does the act equate to the education. I'm comparing weapon handling training to sex education. Both are educational in nature. If you don't plan to use a gun (i.e. you don't plan to have sex) why should you be required to take a class in weapon gandling (or a class in how to sheath and care for your fun gun)? You made a bad anaology that is totally illogical by comparing the training with the act itself. No,m taking sex ed doesn't require you to have sex and taking a gun course doesn't require you to use a handgun. But using the handgun is the equivalent comparison to having sex. If you don't plan to have sex, why shoudl yo have to take a class in having safe sex?

We need a return to the sanity of earlier times: Federalism.

Seriously, why is there one correct answer or one-size-fits-all solution here? Let local school districts, with the input of local parents, decide. Let Mississippi have one policy and Massachusetts another, and Montana yet another. Let SanFran have one, and San Bernardino another.

Here we differ, you seem to think the parents opinion on whether they kids should handle thier 'guns' will somehow protect their children from dangerous situations; whereas i think empowering the children to protect themselves is a far better plan.

Anonymous sex ed classes which the children can opt-in to seems like an ideal solution.

Currently i've seen the exposure of 11 and 12 year olds to 14/15 year olds, where peer education about sex is potentially damaging. In Scouting we can police some amount of the kids behaviour (the elder kids were sat down and asked to self-police and talk amongst themselves about what they would but not do it in front of the younger kids) but outside in an unpoliced environment what do you think is happening???

Dipplayer, I'd gibve you a million +1s if it would let me.

' If you don't plan to use a gun (i.e. you don't plan to have sex) why should you be required to take a class in weapon gandling'

Understood. If YOU don't intend, not if your child doesn't intend.

Actually, we are mor ein agreement than you might realize. I have no propblem with an elective sex-ed course. My only problem is with the required one and even when I was in school, 8th grade Gym and Health class were combined and they taught sex-ed together. No one was allowed to opt out and some of the religious parents wrote notes that their kids were sick that entire week for that year. It hurt some of the kids who had perfect attendance but was the only way the parent's felt they could protect their children from seeing graphic drawings of copulating couples and penises inserted into vaginas. and this was way back in 1981.

'You made a bad anaology that is totally illogical by comparing the training with the act itself.'

My analogy is taking the pro-gun position, 'an armed society is a safe society': if everyone knows that everyone else is armed no-one will shoot anyone (except in a momen of passion.

If everyone knows everyone else is aware how to prevent the spread of STIs no-one will dare embarass themselves by having unprotected sex (except in a moment of passion)

@ora - If a child can't be held responsible for killing someone else as an adult and a child isn't allowed to drink or smoke or drive (sex ed is before they turn 16 even), then the parent is responsible for their actions, not the school or the teacher. And with that responsibility comes the right to determine their educational curriculum.

But not everyone *is* armed. I don't have a firearm in my house. My only weapons beyond blunt or sharp instruments (hammers, crowbars, screwdrivers, kitchen knives, box knives, etc.) are saws (circular, pole, chain, reciprocating, jig, etc.) and drills.

'way back in '81'

I dunno, my schooling was in '94 ish, when condoms were legally available in ireland from 92/93... Conservative Ireland, and sex ed in an all boys school which was setup by the de la salle brothers... I doubt we had any copulating penis-vagina pairings (or any of the variety of sex acts which aren't neccesarily about reproduction.)

Potentially armed is enough for the gun advocates to male their claim...

Yes both are naive positions to take; i seriously doubt thete will be much of a culture of embarassment over not using a condom (for pre/extra-marital sex) where to do otherwise is taboo; but likewise i doubt more guns results in a safer society... Glorification of warriors likely does more to endanger americans (contrast gun owership vs gun homocide between the US and Canada) and equally glorification of sexual prowess in western culture probably does more damage...

Still where you go to change such cultural issues? Education is an important place to get everyone on the same level. (i compared sex to a rollercoaster ride, both are fun and last about 145 seconds, but you wouldn't go bragging about the awesome rollercoaster you went on last night, your friends would be all like 'so what?')

Well, Ireland versus United States... We need to be talkign about the same country at least. The thread was about Bush's policies (USofA) not Ireland's policies. So your experience with the US laws, school system, and policies is second hand via the media...