Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Are you Karl Rove? Because you are a master spin doctor. They are banning all talk of anything that is not heterosexual. How can you not see that as anything other than anti-gay?
They're banning all additional topics not related to instructing kids about the biological repercussions of sexual activity. While I'll admit that it's been a long time since I've attended sex ed class, I don't recall anyone actually teaching that heterosexuality was "good" or "normal". They simply instructed us about the biological processes of procreation, and the potential consequences of sexual activity in general (stds and whatnot). There was no discussion at all of what kids "should do" sexually. More of a "this is where babies come from, and if you do <list of things>, here's a <list of things> which may happen", sort of thing.
It's not "anti-gay". It's about not getting into the social aspects of sexuality, because then we have to discuss everything. So let's stick to the biology of the subject and leave the other parts for another later section.
Quote:
Fetishes, oral sex, **** sex, and sex toys are sex acts, so of course you wouldn't include them in the curriculum. We are talking about a sexual identity, not sex acts. Please tell me you can see the difference here...you are as bad as Alma with your awful comparisons.
So a kid wondering why he's so aroused at the sight of feet might not feel just as "left out" if his sexual identity isn't addressed as a topic in sex ed? Aren't you cherry picking things to say make up identity here? Let me remind you, we don't teach heterosexual identity either. We teach (or should teach) just the biological aspects of the subject. You're falling for a persecution complex argument that really doesn't exist.
Quote:
You almost sound reasonable here, but still are basically saying that heterosexual is ok and homosexual is not. I understand that you feel this way and you are more than welcome to your own opinion, but these are laws that are designed to tell kids who are gay that they are bad.
No, they aren't. You're excluding a huge middle there. Failing to single out gay kids and tell them that they are good is not the same as telling them they are bad. IMO, at that grade level, there should be no discussion at all about good or bad. Just the biological facts are needed. Leave the social aspects to a more advanced human sexuality class. Grade and middle school kids don't need to know that stuff. As I said earlier, the problem is that once you start teaching those social aspects you end out doing exactly what you are claiming you're trying to avoid: creating a perception of good/bad based on inclusion or exclusion from the discussion. If you leave out any mention of sexual identity and discuss just the biological aspects, you avoid falling into this trap in the first place.
Your argument only has merit if sex ed classes at that level do include discussions of "normal" sexual behavior from a social perspective. And I'm not aware that they do. And if they do, then the correct direction to go with this is to remove those discussions, not to add more to the list. Because that direction is endless.