Act urgently to try to stop problematic sex-ed program in Maryland

[a_cermak]

These things are omitted because either people want children to have sex or think that they can not limit their behavior and abstinence is unreasonable. Either way, a judgement is being made.

Actually, no most folks don’t want children to have sex though the average age at virginity loss where I live is around 16, so there is a certain reality to accept. The other reason why we educate children about this is because children become 20 somethings and 30 somethings someday and will likely eventually become sexually active and have need of this kind of information.

 

[Jennifer123]

Actually, no most folks don’t want children to have sex though the average age at virginity loss where I live is around 16, so there is a certain reality to accept. The other reason why we educate children about this is because children become 20 somethings and 30 somethings someday and will likely eventually become sexually active and have need of this kind of information.

A reality to accept? That children are destined to have sex? How can that be when they don’t receive important and useful information about how and why to resist their temptation and urges? How can we say that they are making an informed decision when they haven’t been given full disclosure? This isn’t a morality lesson, I think I can agree that religion can be kept out of it, but facts are facts.

 

[rayne100]

It most assuredly does discuss sex, whatever else is sexual orientation about if not about sex in particular? This is what gets me about these discussions, as if any true authentic Christian would have a problem with limiting abusive behavior towards anyone regardless of orientation. But “tolerance” and “acceptance” are entirely two different things, and these programs seek to make them one.

The entire curriculum is subjective and that IS a value judgement. If it weren’t, why isn’t there the statistical information about engaging in pre-marital sex as I’ve posted? Just stating ONE factual blurb about abstinence but then absolutely no follow up with educational material about it specifically is hardly educating the kids.

STD’s are at a grossly high level, it is a major health epidemic, the majority of these diseases are permanent lifetime sentences AND affect women at a much higher rate than males. Do we really want to curb this growing epidemic or not? Seriously. There is just so much ideology regarding sexual “freedom” being pushed on now the 2nd, maybe 3rd generation of young people, and what do we have to show for it? Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, and growing STD rates.

Jennifer, I was not ignoring your post, but I spent about an hour putting together a response for you and then when I went to post, it was erased. I don’t have the energy to start over agin right now, but maybe later on I will provide my response.
Rayne

 

[rayne100]

The ends do not justify the means. If one had a class in pharmocology or physiology and such medical issues were described to show how they worked that may be reasonable, depending upon age.

But, this is a so-called sex ed class. Claiming that if one is going to have sex one should do the following… is saying if you are going to do a bad act then make sure you get a good end by any means necessary. Those are all moral issues. Just stating mechanical things does not magically erase morality. It is a scandal. It helps to lessen morality. It tacitly encouarges and approves bad behavior. It demeans young people.

You still have not pointed out exactly where I made a moral statement.

Regarding your first comment, this is a portion of a Health class in which children learn about their health.

 

[fix]

You still have not pointed out exactly where I made a moral statement.

You said this:

Tell me where I make a moral statement:
" the only sure fire 100 % fool proof way to avoid pregnancy and STDs is abstinence, however if a person is having sex, precautions should be taken to reduce the risk of STD/s and Pregnancy.
Precaustions that are used are…
and they are used in the following way…"

I refer you to this short piece:

…"Extrinsically, condom use brings its own train of evils. There is the act of obtaining or receiving a condom. Condom possession may be a constant temptation to sin as well as an instrument of seduction. It may lead to a habit of fornication and a contraceptive mentality that may destroy a future marriage. Another extrinsic possibility is the multiplication of malefactors, not only condom manufacturers and vendors, but school boards, or trustees, or teachers, or counselors, or chaplains, who advise condom use, or neglect the spiritual direction needed by the young…

lifeissues.net/writers/she/she_11condom.html

Recommmending things like condoms is a moral issue. Stating how to use them is not a subject that is compartmentalized. It tacitly approves of them.

Regarding your first comment, this is a portion of a Health class in which children learn about their health.

OK, learning how our bodies function is great. Teaching it is acceptable to fornicate and contracept is wrong.

 

[rayne100]

You said this:

I refer you to this short piece:

Recommmending things like condoms is a moral issue. Stating how to use them is not a subject that is compartmentalized. It tacitly approves of them.

OK, learning how our bodies function is great. Teaching it is acceptable to fornicate and contracept is wrong.

So your solution is what? To say nothing regarding protection, to teach that it is unacceptable to have sex, not teach about protective measures and see what happens?

good plan

tell me how you would feel if you followed this plan, and found that your child came home with an STD, or worse AIDS.
You can’t tell me that it wouldn’t eat you up inside that although they commited a sin, they could have possibly prolonged their life.

 

[fix]

So your solution is what? To say nothing regarding protection, to teach that it is unacceptable to have sex, not teach about protective measures and see what happens?

Protective measures mean abstaining. I do not want to answer for leading another into sin.

good plan

It is a good plan if we accept what the plan really is. The plan is to know God and to love God. We do not show our love by sinning.

tell me how you would feel if you followed this plan, and found that your child came home with an STD, or worse AIDS.

Who would be happy their child were in danger? You have decided that young people cannot abstain. They can and do.

Let me use an analogy. If your child wanted to rob a bank would you suggest they not do it, but if they must please wear a bullet proof vest? Or, do not use drugs, but if you must please only use Rx narcotics and only with a correct dose?

You can’t tell me that it wouldn’t eat you up inside that although they commited a sin, they could have possibly prolonged their life.

You create a false choice. The choice is to do good and avoid evil. The choice is not sin, but sin in a way that may or may not preserve you from physical harm.

 

[gam197]

I telephoned 1-410-767-0467, the Board of Education # you posted and as per instructed told them I wasn’t from the state but was opposed to this. The do have a woman taking phone calls and you can believe Planned Parenthood is calling. I also called my brother who lives in Maryland so he can call and/or sign petition as they have only 600 signatures and are trying to get 5000.

petitiononline.com/CRCMCPS/petition.html

 

[rayne100]

Protective measures mean abstaining. I do not want to answer for leading another into sin.

It is a good plan if we accept what the plan really is. The plan is to know God and to love God. We do not show our love by sinning.

Who would be happy their child were in danger? You have decided that young people cannot abstain. They can and do.

Let me use an analogy. If your child wanted to rob a bank would you suggest they not do it, but if they must please wear a bullet proof vest? Or, do not use drugs, but if you must please only use Rx narcotics and only with a correct dose?

You create a false choice. The choice is to do good and avoid evil. The choice is not sin, but sin in a way that may or may not preserve you from physical harm.

To clarify, you would teach all school children, to abstain and nothing else.There would be no mention of condoms or of any other contraceptive devices AT ALL, ever, correct?

 

[Jennifer123]

To clarify, you would teach all school children, to abstain and nothing else.There would be no mention of condoms or of any other contraceptive devices AT ALL, ever, correct?

I just don’t know why we can’t stick to basics about our sexual bodies and leave the actual information about sexual activity to the parents?

It wasn’t until I became a pro-lifer, and a mother, that I understood so much more about a woman’s body, stuff I really hadn’t been taught in “sex ed”.

I can remember how duped I felt that I didn’t know this stuff and I am a college-educated former liberal who thought I had it all figured out, believe me, I had “practiced” a time or two.

I don’t know why it’s all or nothing with this stuff. It seems to me the cards are all stacked in the COD deck. In a secular environment I am not asking for control over the curriculum but I am asking to have all factual information presented. I don’t see what is wrong with presenting a balanced curriculum with abstinence-based information and educational materials unless it is threatening some long-held, and I believe faulty, beliefs.

 

[reborn_pagan]

I honestly don’t see the harm in sex-ed, I mean it teaches you to have safe sex for whenever you do have sex…Now lets thing about this for a second…
More and more teens are having sex before 18.
So theres more sex-ed classes are popping up.
So it is obvious that we need to have sex-ed because its obvious that abstanince (sry if i misspelled it) is not working…

 

[rayne100]

I just don’t know why we can’t stick to basics about our sexual bodies and leave the actual information about sexual activity to the parents?

Because parents aren’t doing their jobs and explaining ti to their children. Because some parents like Fix will only present one side of the story.

It wasn’t until I became a pro-lifer, and a mother, that I understood so much more about a woman’s body, stuff I really hadn’t been taught in “sex ed”.

I can remember how duped I felt that I didn’t know this stuff and I am a college-educated former liberal who thought I had it all figured out, believe me, I had “practiced” a time or two.

That’s what I’m saying. I 'm saying that what is taught in school gives a basis, a foundation and a starting point for parents to continue the diologue at home, to impart their wisom and experiences and beliefs to their children at home.
I don’t understand why people don’t understand that school can only teach so much given it’s limitations, parents have to continue the learning at home. That is where the moral discussion begins and continues.

I don’t know why it’s all or nothing with this stuff. It seems to me the cards are all stacked in the COD deck. In a secular environment I a;m not asking for control over the curriculum but I am asking to have all factual information presented. I don’t see what is wrong with presenting a balanced curriculum with abstinence-based information and educational materials unless it is threatening some long-held, and I believe faulty, beliefs.

Not teaching about prper condom usage and precaustions is just as negligent as not teaching about abstinence. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing but people have to realize is that moral teachings regarding sex are not the school’s job. Facts are. Moral teaching is the job of the parents and both entities should work together. School can teach what facts they can and parents must continue the teaching at home.

Tell you what, try putting together a curriculum, scripted like the one Maryland did, but with your idea of what should be talked about and present it.
But like you said it can’t be one sided.
( BTW,I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic. I am truly wondering what you would put together)

 

[fix]

To clarify, you would teach all school children, to abstain and nothing else.There would be no mention of condoms or of any other contraceptive devices AT ALL, ever, correct?

Yes, that is correct. Why would I teach something to an innocent young person that would be evil? Again, describing such things in proper context is not evil. Claiming they are justified in using them is another matter.

 

[fix]

Because parents aren’t doing their jobs and explaining ti to their children. Because some parents like Fix will only present one side of the story.

How many sides to wrongness are there? What if there is a “course” on end of life issues that described assited suicide in detail? Would those instructions be acceptable? What about abortion as a tool? May that be related as simply another “side” to an issue?

 

[rayne100]

How many sides to wrongness are there? What if there is a “course” on end of life issues that described assited suicide in detail? Would those instructions be acceptable? What about abortion as a tool? May that be related as simply another “side” to an issue?

Listen, This is a public school, is it not? according to the Secular law, Profilactics are not illegal, assisted suicide is (that is a stawman argument).
Public schools can only do so much, like I said to Jennifer123, it is up to the parents of these children to continue the diologue against contraceptives at home, to instill their own morals and beliefs to their children at home.
That is the parent’s job, the schools job is to present both sides objectively and without reference to religion.

My question goes the same to you, what would you put together if given the chance regarding a ciriculum for a public school? Remeber you cannot reference a specific religion or God in your lesson plan?

Also remember this class is an OPT IN class. Parents have to give their consent for the child to participate. If you find it objectionable, don’t send your child to that class. let them learn about the other classes that they have provided instead.

 

[RyanL]

Listen, This is a public school, is it not? according to the Secular law, Profilactics are not illegal, assisted suicide is (that is a stawman argument).

Actually, assisted suicide is legal, depending on the jurisdiction. Not a straw-man.

…it is up to the parents of these children to continue the diologue against contraceptives at home, to instill their own morals and beliefs to their children at home.

The free exercise clause should prevent the state from presenting things to children contrary to the religious values of the parents. It shouldn’t be a struggle. This curriculum arguably fails that test.

That is the parent’s job, the schools job is to present both sides objectively and without reference to religion.

Would the same hold true with assisted suicide?

What about adultery? Just like prophylactics, it’s not illegal.

What about prostitution? Again, depending on the jurisdiction it’s not illegal.

What about the states who still have sodomy laws? Can this curriculum not be taught there?

You’re really opening up a Pandora’s Box with your idea of permissibility of material…

My question goes the same to you, what would you put together if given the chance regarding a ciriculum for a public school? Remeber you cannot reference a specific religion or God in your lesson plan?

How about toss it altogether? Why is that unacceptable?

Also remember this class is an OPT IN class. Parents have to give their consent for the child to participate. If you find it objectionable, don’t send your child to that class. let them learn about the other classes that they have provided instead.

The whole “option” bit wasn’t enough to save the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, daily Bible readings, etc., etc… If either the student or their parents didn’t care for it, the student could be opted out. Yet, this was found impermissible. Why should that suffice now? I’m truly curious as to the distinction you’re drawing.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[fix]

Listen, This is a public school, is it not? according to the Secular law, Profilactics are not illegal, assisted suicide is (that is a stawman argument).

Contraceptive devices used to be illegal too. It is no straw man. Abortion is legal. Can that be presented as an option? What about same sex acts? They are legal. Should they be presented as an option? Secular law is unjust in many areas. That they have the “power” to do such does not make such right. It ought to be resisted and argued against as much as possible.

Public schools can only do so much, like I said to Jennifer123, it is up to the parents of these children to continue the diologue against contraceptives at home, to instill their own morals and beliefs to their children at home.
That is the parent’s job, the schools job is to present both sides objectively and without reference to religion.

Objectively? Why only both sides? Gay parents? What about when segregation was legal? Should we have sat by and said the public schools have the right to teach that?

My question goes the same to you, what would you put together if given the chance regarding a ciriculum for a public school? Remeber you cannot reference a specific religion or God in your lesson plan?

The natural moral law is binding on all. One does not have to mention religion to show that bad behavior is wrong in each case. Again, that the state demands something does not mean we must comply escpecially if it violates one’s conscience.

Also remember this class is an OPT IN class. Parents have to give their consent for the child to participate. If you find it objectionable, don’t send your child to that class. let them learn about the other classes that they have provided instead.

I object to such classes regardless. My objection is based on the fact public morals are important. Their decline is self evident. Condoms will not improve them one bit.

 

[rayne100]

The whole “option” bit wasn’t enough to save the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, daily Bible readings, etc., etc… If either the student or their parents didn’t care for it, the student could be opted out. Yet, this was found impermissible. Why should that suffice now? I’m truly curious as to the distinction you’re drawing.

God Bless,
RyanL

The difference is that this is an Opt in not an Opt out.
All students are not being given this instruction unless parent’s give informed written consent whereas with opt out, unless it is stated that the child does not have permission, he/she would be included.

 

[RyanL]

The difference is that this is an Opt in not an Opt out.

Is that really the case? Is this an after-school deal, or is it a part of the curriculum?

All students are not being given this instruction unless parent’s give informed written consent whereas with opt out, unless it is stated that the child does not have permission, he/she would be included.

The same could be said about any of the above cited cases. If you arranged it so that the students would not be doing daily Bible readings if their parents didn’t give their written consent, that would not make it legal. Bad distinction.

You didn’t answer what the problem would be about tossing this altogether.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[rayne100]

Is that really the case? Is this an after-school deal, or is it a part of the curriculum?

As stated in the body of the cirriculum, this is an opt in class that would take place over two days in the health classes, the students who do not give written consent to attend this class have other health classes that they learn about.
It is not an after school program, however it is an opt in class. being a class, there must be a lesson plan for it.

The same could be said about any of the above cited cases. If you arranged it so that the students would not be doing daily Bible readings if their parents didn’t give their written consent, that would not make it legal. Bad distinction.

I’m not sure what your point is here, I could take this several different ways. Can you clarify your specific meaning for me?

You didn’t answer what the problem would be about tossing this altogether.

God Bless,
RyanL

I wasn’t sure that’s what you meant.
I have already stated that the issue is that some parents do not teach their children anything at all, leaving their children to learn incorrect information such as “if you stand on your head after sex, you will not get pregnant, or you can get pregnant from french kissing…”

I personally would not have a problem with talking to my child about sex and all that goes with it, but some parents do, and therefore some do not discuss it at all.