Can you link a site that doesn't have a banner regarding a petition to reverse the SCOTUS decision regarding marriage equality if you want me to take you seriously?

Do you realize how absurdly vague the *one line* in that entire article is about sodomy? What's a "section" - a day? A week? It doesn't seem to be of any concern to Susan Duffy, who heads an organization whose site home page I can't even navigate without suffering an aneurism. I feel like you scoured the internet for an example to validate your premise that you prove no less ridiculous when you cherry pick (which you said you wouldn't do earlier) one line out of an otherwise irrelevant article with regards to sodomy and sex ed.

So yeah, slippery slope.

There are other articles out there. I just picked one of several. A "section" varies in length but is usually 1-2 weeks.

So in Hawaii, they teach sodomy for 1-2 weeks according to one line from one article, and that is reason to stick with abstinence-only programs?

I doubt they call it sodomy, it's not a religious lesson and we don't live in, what, a bronze age culture.

The usual term used afaik is PiA, (as opposed to PiV) but i would that they cover oral, anal, manual, mutual giving and receiving and a while host of other activities - also including a 'what couts as sex' activity.

*counts, even.

Do you know that only 80-90% of people count Penis in Vagina (PiV) as sex, if a condom is used, or if the man doesn't ejaculate. And even with those things, it is only ~98% who count PiV as sex...

A much lower 45-50% count masturbation as sex. And everything else is somewhere inbetween.

Also you get different things 'counting' if you prep people with the statement 'imagine your significant other engaging in the following activities'. So not only is it personal, it also varies depending on how you ask the question.

And this is something which should be emphasised in sex ed. everyone has different things that they may want. And you don't have to do ANY of it unless you want to (did i mention the importance of consent?)

So what is the Christian argument against this:

"Sex education should teach sex. Anatomy, consequences, positive and negative, and safety nets. Professionals should be asked to guest-teach about rape and clear up the perpetual misogyny (and misandry in some instances) that plague the victims. Very simple. Abstinence can be taught as a way to avoid all of the positive and negative aspects of sex entirely, but it should be taught as a choice, not a requirement. Teach that sex is an issue of unilateral consent as the conclusion to the curriculum."

The "positive and negative" seems to me the only questionable area because that can delve into questions of morality. So, setting that aside, what is the objection to this fact-based curriculum?

For the secular world, nothing.

For the Christian world, I'd have to go into how the Bible presents the material for you to understand. There's a vast difference between the world's view of sex, marriage and what is right and wrong, and the worldly view, and most people cannot accept a Christian view of morality

"For the secular world, nothing."

OK, schools are secular so this should really be the end of the discussion.

True enough

Except that Christians are pushing abstinence-only educational programs--often with Christian moral roots and which lead to more teen out-of-wedlock pregnancies--into public schools.

A few more pointed questions, TN:

1) Do you have any children?
Would you object to a sex ed curriculum which includes:
2) Anatomy
3) Reproduction/Procreation
4) Definition of consent
5) Problem of rape/misogyny/misandry
6) Definitions of sexual acts

And I'll answer all of those questions:
1: Yes, all teenagers
2/3/4/5/6: No

Yes, I have children that we home school.

For 2-6, here is my complete answer. Please read it all prior to passing judgment or assuming a position.

I believe very strongly that it is not the world's job to teach my children about dating, sex and marriage, but rather my job as a parent. I've outlined below my very detailed position concerning dating, marriage and sex so that there's no confusion (hopefully). I will do so to the best of my ability, not passing judgment or with any animosity or hostility.

I believe dating is different than the way it's treated in the world--and by that, I mean different than the way it's presented in literature, television music, other forms of pop culture and practice. Dating isn't something we do when find someone that we have emotional feelings for. We don't date just to be with someone, or something we practice, and if it doesn't go the way I envisioned it, just drop and move on to the next person. Instead, dating is for the expressed purpose of taking that person of the opposite gender that we have found, tested and proven is worth the possibility of marrying. I met many women in my youth, but I didn't date until I found that woman that I felt mirrored the qualities I wanted to see in a wife. We should date with the intent to marry, and if I get to the point that I believe that someone isn't the best for me, and I for her, I should break off the relationship.

Marriage, likewise, is a solemn commitment that a man and woman have for each other, to dedicate their lives in service to one another. As we say in our marriage vows "for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do we part". It's not a institution we have when we happen to find someone we stumbled on while dating that we "take to the next level". It's not something we do to simply garner government benefits. We should treat it as a solemn life-long pact, and the act of pinnacle relationship whereby a man and woman who love each other beyond a physical love, commit to being dedicated to. It's not something that we agree to as long as the problems in it don't reach a certain difficult level, but instead, marriage is an institution we fight for because we live our spouse so deeply that we would fight tooth and nail to preserve the relationship. Marriage is the deepest commitment we make to someone we love more than any other being in the world, and want to spend the rest of our lives with, regardless of the circumstances that may arise to deteriorate it.

Sex is the pinnacle of love and intimacy. It's not just a carnal act that we spend time doing with just anyone. It's also not something we do because we see its part of being in a relationship. Sex isn't just physical. It is physical, but it is far more an emotional and spiritual bonding and the peak union and expression of love between a man and a woman. It is sacred. When two people join together in an act of sex, it breaks down all barriers bonding two people for life. When we treat sex in a flippant manner, we reduce it to to a carnal pleasure. The world inundates itself with sex to the point that it doesn't matter who it's with. It ceases to be something we give to that one person with whom we have the deepest connection, but rather it becomes a thing of self-gratification performed to get a physical feeling

Sex is an act that, when done, changes a person on a deeper level forever. In fact, when someone has sex for the first time, you can see the change that it brings to them. They act different, move different and *are* different. In fact, when someone that has sex for the first time, they become incredibly attached to that person, and when that relationship is cut off, that person has a difficult time breaking free mentally from the relationship--especially girls as they can become obsessed or clingy toward that person they first had sex with. Because sex is the deepest connection we have with someone, and because it transcends the physical into the emotional and spiritual, it's something that must be reserved for marriage. Sex is the greatest gift of yourself that you can give to someone, and we deteriorate it's value when we give it to multiple people.

one way to think about it is to imagine yourself when you first met that girl you really liked. Picture how you would feel when you hear that person say "I love you".

Now, imagine you hear that same girl say "I love you" to 6 other people. When that happens, the words lose their value. When that level of expression is given to many people, it ceases to have such a high value. Rather when we treat sex as something we give to just ONE person, it begins to have a deeper meaning. It's THAT meaning that is lost in today's world. When we institutionalize sex education, we take what is sacred and make it common, even to the point that it diminishes the value to near worthless.

Now you can argue till you're blue in the face, but I know where I stand, and it is firmly and unchangeable with these ideas. Not just these, but with deeper conviction now that I see sex as not something I give to someone, but rather something God granted to me to give, not just to anyone, but that ONE person that will forever mean more to me than life itself.

@Tru

How did you meet/get to know women if you didn't go in dates in the first place?

I met women/girls when hanging out with friends. Sometimes I would hang out with females, or rather one exclusively. Merely because I hang out with a female doesn't mean we are dating. Dating always starts off as two friends moving to another level.

TN: Thanks for that expression of what dating, love and marriage mean to you. I don't think anyone would quibble with that as a goal for anyone to choose to strive for in their life.

Nonetheless, I am still curious about your answers to #2-6 which I listed above.

As an aside, all of my kids were attended an independent study charter school (essentially home school) until they started middle school in 6th grade. It can be very rewarding as I'm sure you well know.

Sure, I have female friends, too. But if we started hanging out with the intention of possibly becoming more than friends, that was considered a date. What would you call that?

A parent's job is not to oversee their child's adult life. Sex is part of everyone's life and is a rare example of a practical, universal thing taught in public school, something we should be doing more often. It is the last thing that a parent should try to teach on their own. That tradition has gone on for hundreds of years and has led us to the point where a) the parent is knowledgable and does their best to teach their kid (and kudos to them), b) the parent is not knowledgable but tries anyway, though they fail to adequately teach their kid, or c) the parent is uncomfortable and/or not present enough in their kid's life to teach them about sex. While I will applaud you all day for taking the responsibility of teaching the morality of sex as you see it to your child, I will never agree with you when you say it should be the parent's sole responsibility. Schools should, as they currently do in most places, provide the basis for an opening dialogue with the curriculum I laid out earlier and expand it where they see fit, be it by teaching varying moral opinions, hopefully without bias toward one or another, or anything else of the sort as approved by whoever oversees them.

Also, I would truly appreciate some female voices in this one if we have anyone willing. This seems too male-dominated, kind of like every other discussion regarding sex and the consequences thereof our government has ever had.

"It is the last thing that a parent should try to teach on their own."

Huh? What on earth?

Yes, your "b)" and "c)" exist, and that's part of why public sex ed exists. But if the parent can achieve a), of course they should. How can you possibly doubt that that would be ideal?

A parent should not teach sex ed on their own. Professionals with proper training should lay the framework for that discussion, which they typically do by the end of elementary school. Once that happens, parents should be more than willing to talk to their child about it, but they shouldn't be introduced to it by the parent.

bo, I think I need to point out that you're also going down a slippery slope a bit.

You might as well be saying: "Professionals with proper training should lay the framework for <insert any topic> discussion."

This is exactly the sort of thing that gives anti-authoritarians of any political stripe fits. There is a reason families are the foundation of society and that's because parents educate children (the future) how to live every single day.

I do agree with you that poor education by parents is how ignorance propagates, so professionals are important. But making a normative statement so blithely just will not fly with most parents. And there's nothing more they are willing to protect than their children.

Protect their children from what? How is asking a professional to approach this topic, as is already the case in many, many districts, by fourth grade? Girls are just reaching the age where they need to know this stuff, particularly for themselves. And I hope that a mother who cares will let her know about periods before they start for her - don't get me wrong there - but when it comes down to the birds and the bees, I want my kid getting educated.

If you don't want the school to introduce it first, fine, do what you want, but don't try to teach it. We aren't professionals. If we can come to the obvious conclusion that sex ed should be part of a child's ongoing education, then the professionals should do the teaching and, like every other part of school, the parent should be the supplement. That's how school is designed. That's why you don't go out of your way to teach your kid math before the school does. Sex is no different if they are taught about it before they are of age to do it.

That second sentence makes no sense. My point was that sex ed begins in fourth or fifth grade, before sex itself begins for most. I wouldn't be opposed to beginning the discussion sooner, particularly for girls.

Protect them from authorities who want to influence their children without their consent.

I agree with you that sex ed--especially sex ed--is important for any public school curriculum. But there are plenty of people out there who utterly disagree.

"That's why you don't go out of your way to teach your kid <anything> before the school does." Seriously?

Your parents never read to you as a toddler? Never did your ABC's? Never learned to count? Never made you watch Sesame Street or Little Einstein?

Most parents go to great lengths to educate their kids before school. Countless studies show kids with early parental involvement have a greater chance at success.

I see where you are coming from, but you are not making your point clear. Or maybe you are, but it comes from a naivete about parenting. Once you put your kid in school full time, you do shift toward reinforcing their academic achievement rather than driving it, but there is a world of learning happening every minute you spend with your children.

It never, ever stops.

The opinion you're expressing here, bo, is just appalling. Do you know how recent an invention classroom education is, of the type seen in America? Even among those who were educated in the past, very few were educated this way; there were books and reading and mathematics and philosophy long, long before there were classrooms with "professionals" to teach everything, and teaching basic facts of life in such a setting is a far more recent invention yet. There is nothing magical about our system. Your cultural myopia is extreme.

When it comes to educating children in sex or any number of other things, "professional" just means certified by some other "professional," and so on back to the first person who had the presumption to label themselves an expert in education. Educating children is the business and ability of all educated people. If you can't do it, you're not educated. Directing the education of particular children is, entirely, the business of their parents or legal guardians.

Please note, by the way, that I am NOT saying that sex education should not exist in schools. I am saying that, if it does, we should view it as a convenience and a service offered to parents who would prefer that others handle that training of their children. The cart is entirely before the horse when you start saying that parents *should not* do it on their own.

I still entirely feel it is the parents role to be the primary educator toward morality in their children. Christians view sex as a moral and spiritual issue, and as such, secular institutions have no place educating moral or spiritual things.

if you view sex in a purely physical sense, and you feel secular institutions can teach such topics, then that is up to you.

I agree that there are those that parents that do not touch the subject, but that does NOT mean that the majority don't, or don't do it effectively. I know many, many parents who do effectively teach dating, marriage and sex to their children.


@Jeff Kuta: I really thought your reply to bo was well stated and illustrated the role of parent vs school well. +1

@Jeff Kuta: I meant to answer your question about 2-6 earlier. Here it is:

I get the impression that you're looking for a simple yes/no answer to whether I agree with points 2-6, especially in light of your answer to those questions. For me, it's not so simple an answer. Let me illustrate in a very simple analogy (mind you, it's not perfect, but will suffice).

Imagine you were in college and signed up for an art class. When you attend class, all semester you learn about art using colored pencils and oil paints. While in the class, you hear of some of your friends taking a different class that teaches colored pencils and oil paints but also teaches ceramics, sculpting, etching and not just the "hows" but the spirit behind art, the self expression, the appreciation for the artist, finding the meaning behind the art, and art history. At the end of the semester, you are asked whether you agree with an art class that teaches art using colored pencils and oil paints.

The answer to your question isn't whether I agree with the topics, but rather do I agree with a course that teaches EXCLUSIVELY these topics. To this question, I say that I do not agree.

These topics have their place but when the physical act of sex is the only thing taught, it misses out on the spiritual and emotional aspects behind sex.

Since school is a secular institution, it cannot possibly be expected to teach the spiritual aspects behind sex. I see sex as a moral issue, one in which the school is unprepared to cover to its full extent.

Now, such topics you mentioned have their place, but within proper and complete context.

@TN: Thanks for your answers and perspective. I understand better.

When someone believes that the morality of sexual relations is impossible to decouple from the act of sexual intercourse and accompanying biology, I can see why they would want to provide that message and education in their chosen context.

That also provides some enlightenment on why the only valid alternative to a "complete sex ed package" guided by someone with the same spiritual or moral background is an abstinence-only program.

I still think the benefits of a scientifically-based program like bo described above outweigh the risks of an abstinence-only program, but now I can better understand some of the objections raised by some parents.