Sex Education

[andyandely1997]

Interesting choice of words, but I’m afraid the only propaganda being suggested is by those who would promote their religious agenda, at the expense of the health and welfare of our children. Propaganda, after-all, is the dissemination of information intended to promote one’s particular agenda, be it political or religious.

What you might call religious propaganda, when God was still part of the schools, I call the truth. And the schools are so much better since we kicked God out into the street. Schools across our country are in chaos. I do call it propaganda, or the political agenda of the Left’s social policy, which you relate to health & welfare, and I relate to immorality being piled upon our kids. This health & welfare is nothing but a lame talking point for the Left.

When we repress good, evil will abound, and when we repress evil, good will abound. Why do you suppose there is so much chaos in our schools these days? We used to suppress the evil, but now we are suppressing the good. Yet, we are still surprised by the outcome in our schools, and looking everywhere for answers, except for God.

 

[edwest2]

Interesting choice of words, but I’m afraid the only propaganda being suggested is by those who would promote their religious agenda, at the expense of the health and welfare of our children. Propaganda, after-all, is the dissemination of information intended to promote one’s particular agenda, be it political or religious.

My parents sent me to Catholic school for a reason. They were not interested in me getting a generic education. Catholic schools are biased toward Catholic teaching and there is nothing wrong with that. The answer is simple: no sex means no baby and no STDs - guaranteed. Artificial Birth Control - not guaranteed.

The 24/7 media machine encourages sexual activity constantly. That is not normal. Shame and appropriate guilt needs to be instilled in Catholics, regardless of age.

God bless,
Ed

 

[FOFEBA]

What you might call religious propaganda, when God was still part of the schools, I call the truth. And the schools are so much better since we kicked God out into the street. Schools across our country are in chaos. I do call it propaganda, or the political agenda of the Left’s social policy, which you relate to health & welfare, and I relate to immorality being piled upon our kids. This health & welfare is nothing but a lame talking point for the Left.

When we repress good, evil will abound, and when we repress evil, good will abound. Why do you suppose there is so much chaos in our schools these days? We used to suppress the evil, but now we are suppressing the good. Yet, we are still surprised by the outcome in our schools, and looking everywhere for answers, except for God.

Whoa, there. This position that biology is evil may hold in evangelical traditions, but do you really think that it has a place in Catholicism?

I don’t think that anyone in this thread has suggested that kids should be encouraged to be having sex.

I think that there may be a disconnect here in understanding each other. What, exactly, do you think kids should be taught in terms of preventing STD’s and preventing pregnancy?

Keep in mind that kids are on the internet, and the vast majority of internet traffic is sex related. If they want to see porn or any sort, stuff which most of us had never even heard of, and still might not know about - it is there at the click of a mouse. Kids are curious, and they will discover what they are seeking.

My position in this is that they should be armed impartially with knowledge, and then more prejudicially with a sense of morality. I disagree with the position that ignorance is virtuous in today’s world.

 

[Seeker2010]

Condomes and pills to don’t prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.

Well, I’m not really sure what a condome is, but you may be right that it may not prevent a thing. However, condoms and birth-control pills, used properly, most assuredly DO prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Your statement is demonstrably, factually incorrect, and you want YOUR agenda being taught to children? Hah.

 

[Seeker2010]

I repeat that what’s discussed in some sex ed classes likely violates sexual harrassment laws!

Care to give an example or two of what you mean? You are making a statement as though it’s indisputable fact without backing it up with any evidence.

Besides breaking sexual harrassment laws, it breaks down a barrier of modesty to force children to listen to discussions of sexuality in such great detail.

And how exactly do you expect them to learn without discussion?

 

[Seeker2010]

Sorry, no way I would want my middle school age child to be taught about ABC and I better have the choice to opt out from any other sex ed I would feel was inappropriate and went against my faith.

So which of the following two scenarios would you rather have:

A: Your 16 year-old daughter has sex, uses a condom, and suffers no ill effects.
B: Your 16 year-old daughter has sex, doesn’t use a condom, get’s pregnant, and infected with an STD.

I realize what you’d rather have happen is for your 16 year-old daughter to NOT have sex, but of the two (and only two) choices I have proffered, which would you prefer.

 

[FOFEBA]

My children are well aware of STDS and all the birth control stuff on the market. But I will not lie to them and tell them that the pill or a condome is going to protect them. Having multiple partners is dangerious and when we hand these out like candy to children it is like giving a child a gun and then tell him to be careful. It is negligence and should be considered child abuse.

My child have been taught that they are worth more than a ten minute thrill. They are truly pincessess and princes in my eyes and in the eyes of our Lord and thus they are being taught to act and expected to act.

I agree with you, and I think that if the schools stick to the science and biology of the issue, while letting the parents teach morality, then that is what I prefer.

For example, it is a fact that abstinence is the best way to avoid STD’s and pregnancy. It is a fact that internet pornography is corrosive to a person’s sexuality, and to the success of even future relationships. It is a fact that if one does have intercourse, then a condom is the best protection against HIV and a number of other STD’s. It is a fact that oral sex is sex just as intercourse is, and that STD’s can be spread in this way… and so on.

Why not give kids enough information to make intelligent decisions. The job of a parent to teach morality starts long before a child is maturing sexually. It is also true that kids make mistakes. Why condemn them simply because they lack the wisdom of an adult in these matters?

 

[PatriceA]

So which of the following two scenarios would you rather have:

A: Your 16 year-old daughter has sex, uses a condom, and suffers no ill effects.
B: Your 16 year-old daughter has sex, doesn’t use a condom, get’s pregnant, and infected with an STD.

I realize what you’d rather have happen is for your 16 year-old daughter to NOT have sex, but of the two (and only two) choices I have proffered, which would you prefer.

First off, 16 is not middle school.

But parents should have the option to opt out of any program that teaches any aspect of sex ed that goes against their religious beliefs.

Your scenerio is limited in educating a child. There should be much more involved in teaching about ABC, including the Church teachings and the health risks that are never fully discussed. You are not doing a child any justice if the only way you think you are protecting a child against an unwanted pregnancy and an STD is to simply teach them how to use ABC. There should be so much more involved in education a child about sex than just telling them they have two options: abstain or use ABC. Public schools are ill equipped to do the job properly and it certainly should not be taught to a middle schooler.

 

[faithfully]

In the 1960s, it was clearly understood by both sexes: no sex before marriage - period. To convince people otherwise is simply not setting a valid standard. It reinforces the current distorted thinking that nobody can control themselves.

God bless,
Ed

If this is true, then this age group would not have any, or would have VERY low incidence of cervical cancer. As it’s caused for the most part by HPV, an STD…

Can we find some stats that show this to be the case?

 

[FOFEBA]

If this is true, then this age group would not have any, or would have VERY low incidence of cervical cancer. As it’s caused for the most part by HPV, an STD…

Can we find some stats that show this to be the case?

Yes, well this is not the 60’s. Something happened during the 60’s called the widespread use of birth control which changed our culture irreversibly. You can’t go back in time. That was 50 years ago.

 

[Seeker2010]

But parents should have the option to opt out of any program that teaches any aspect of sex ed that goes against their religious beliefs.

They do. It’s called sending the child to a private school that will indoctrinate them with whatever the parents want them indoctrinated with. If they go to public school, they get a public school experience.

There should be much more involved in teaching about ABC, including the Church teachings and the health risks that are never fully discussed.

Church teachings have no place at a public school run by a secular government, and you darn well know that. If there are genuine health risks that are not being taught, as a parent you have an obligation to attempt to get the curriculum changed.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, well this is not the 60’s. Something happened during the 60’s called the widespread use of birth control which changed our culture irreversibly. You can’t go back in time. That was 50 years ago.

Time travel is not possible but moral education is possible. My point is, and will always be, the myth that people cannot control their own sexuality is wrong. A 19 year old relative of mine simply said No to her boyfriend. No need for pills or condoms when one word can still be said.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

Your scenerio is limited in educating a child.

Also, I would note for the record that you didn’t answer my simple question.

 

[PatriceA]

They do. It’s called sending the child to a private school that will indoctrinate them with whatever the parents want them indoctrinated with. If they go to public school, they get a public school experience.

Church teachings have no place at a public school run by a secular government, and you darn well know that. If there are genuine health risks that are not being taught, as a parent you have an obligation to attempt to get the curriculum changed.

Please be more chartible in your language towards me. I am not attacking you so please choose your words more carefully because it sure does seem you are trying to attack my opinion which is much different than yours.

And this whole situation is exactly why I cyber/homeschool.

And to answer your question, I will teach my daughter as much as I can to make the best decision given our faith and moral values. But if she chooses to have sex, I’d rather her face the consequences of one decision (having premarital sex) than to complicate it with another sin (ABC), especially after some of the recent research I’ve read concering the health risks involved with ABC. Your scenerio is like telling a child hey I know you might do heroin, so here’s some clean needles because I don’t want you to get hepatitus while doing so. Forget about teaching them all the risks involved with drug use because they’re going to do it anyways. Isn’t that what you’re proposing?

I’m proposing if you’re going to want to teach middle schoolers (ages 11-15) about ABC, teach them EVERYTHING about it, not just how to use it. Teach them about abstainance as well.

 

[faithfully]

What if one of the consequences is Herpes? A life time sentence. One that can even interfere with her giving birth naturally without risking the health of her child?

For me the answer would be to educate on these diseases to an extreme. AIDS was the big fear when I was a kid. I suspect it kept a few kids out of the sack!

 

[Seeker2010]

And this whole situation is exactly why I cyber/homeschool.

Then why do you care? You have complete, 100% control of your child’s curriculum, why would it concern you in the least what a school is teaching others?

But if she chooses to have sex, I’d rather her face the consequences of one decision (having premarital sex) than to complicate it with another sin (ABC), especially after some of the recent research I’ve read concering the health risks involved with ABC.

Well, I certainly will applaud your honesty, but I think that would in the long run be doing your (hypothetical) daughter a disservice. For a child at 16 alters the course of a young persons life in ways that can never be undone.

Your scenerio is like telling a child hey I know you might do heroin, so here’s some clean needles because I don’t want you to get hepatitus while doing so. Forget about teaching them all the risks involved with drug use because they’re going to do it anyways. Isn’t that what you’re proposing?

No, my scenario is more like telling a child not to do heroin, and the reasons why. But I would also tell them for the love of God, please if you choose to disregard my advice on this matter, at the very least use clean needles. That way you’ll only be dealing with one problem (drugs), and not two (drugs and AIDS). Zero problems is better than one, but one is better than two, especially when the second is a death sentence.

 

[andyandely1997]

Whoa, there. This position that biology is evil may hold in evangelical traditions, but do you really think that it has a place in Catholicism?

I don’t think that anyone in this thread has suggested that kids should be encouraged to be having sex.

I think that there may be a disconnect here in understanding each other. What, exactly, do you think kids should be taught in terms of preventing STD’s and preventing pregnancy?

Keep in mind that kids are on the internet, and the vast majority of internet traffic is sex related. If they want to see porn or any sort, stuff which most of us had never even heard of, and still might not know about - it is there at the click of a mouse. Kids are curious, and they will discover what they are seeking.

My position in this is that they should be armed impartially with knowledge, and then more prejudicially with a sense of morality. I disagree with the position that ignorance is virtuous in today’s world.

I have nothing against teaching biology & the reproductive system. I do have a problem with public schools teaching a view on birth control, which is at odds with the Church. Or teaching sex before marriage is ok, just make sure it is safe & use a condom. I will definitely side with Christ & the Church on these isssues. And more importantly, I will keep my children informed on these issues with guidance from the Church. I do not believe in keeping children ignorant, only teaching them the truth without a secular slant. And I also do not believe ignorance is a virtue, although, many adults are ignorant of the truth, while replacing it with their own version of truth.

 

[FOFEBA]

Time travel is not possible but moral education is possible. My point is, and will always be, the myth that people cannot control their own sexuality is wrong. A 19 year old relative of mine simply said No to her boyfriend. No need for pills or condoms when one word can still be said.

God bless,
Ed

I think we find common ground, Ed, in that moral education is necessary.

I think we disagree in that you might be thinking that young people should suffer or perhaps contract an incurable illness, if they make a mistake. Correct me, if I am wrong about that. I would hate to think that of anyone.

 

[FOFEBA]

As a non-Catholic, I have some serious questions about the legitimacy of Church policy on masturbation.

To me, it is clear that God would not condone any activity which is injurious to our health. Yet, it has been confirmed in studies on several occasions, the latest being a study of 30,000 men. Frequent ejaculation (more than 21 times per month) has a marked decrease on the incidence of prostate cancer (33% or more).

How could anyone teach a young man that he should not masturbate, knowing that it could increase his risk of cancer later in life by 30-50%? That just makes no sense to me, as much as I appreciate the Church’s position on marriage and fidelity, it appears to be dead wrong in the areas of masturbation. Literally dead wrong. Who knows how many men it has murdered and caused great suffering by cancer, through this misguided policy.

It would seem obvious that this is the rule of man, and not of God.