OrphanPip

Those ages do look pretty young to me, and i don't support schools teaching sexual methodologies, but i do agree with you that the notion of homosexuality should be taught. I have no idea what the right age is.

Since many religions teach that homosexuality is a sin, there are many religiously based opinions about it. I don't know how the laws are in Canada, but I think that the subject matter would fall under "separation of church and state" unless it is a privately run school. I personally do not want anyone teaching my children (at any age) something contrary to my religious beliefs. If you would enlighten me about what kinds of things about homosexuality that you think should be taught, I might understand where you are coming from.

Oh yes, I was in fact going to make a blog a while back on this very subject. The fact that my step-sister had no idea that condoms were really necessary is beyond me even today. . . .she was 17 at the time btw.

I find it appalling how many public schools here in America disregard sex education almost entirely and what I find more appalling is all of this ridiculous money spent on abstinence education. Now tell me, were can you point out abstinence ever working? And guess what? Even if it does work, the poor kids are going to rush themselves into a hasty marriage just so that they can finally have sex.

Also, another terrible aspect of abstinence is its stance or negligence of condoms. If the kids don't know about how important they are, then of course they're going to get pregnant!

I've heard cases about how kids taught not to have vaginal intercourse ended up having anal intercourse instead. There's abstinence for you.

I think 7th grade is frankly a little bit too young. But once puberty hits, sex education is vital. Maybe around 8th grade they can start subtly and then grow on from there.

Like Pip, I must say, thank God for the internet (i.e. porn), as most kids I think now days do.

Either way, sex education should regarded as equally important as all the other curriculum as it involves a basic human need and something that all humans do, and along with that comes some dangers and precautions which teens have to know.

Oh and as far as homosexuality is concerned, I think of course kids should know about it because there will always be gay kids attending schools and it's in fact even worse if they don't know about condoms.

Homosexual sex should be taught side-by-side with heterosexual sex (maybe with less emphasis though) because it is also something that teens have to know, especially if they're gay. Believe me, what better way of combating AIDS than to teach kids, gay or straight, to always wear a condom (or use birth control).

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Since many religions teach that homosexuality is a sin, there are many religiously based opinions about it. I don't know how the laws are in Canada, but I think that the subject matter would fall under "separation of church and state" unless it is a privately run school. I personally do not want anyone teaching my children (at any age) something contrary to my religious beliefs. If you would enlighten me about what kinds of things about homosexuality that you think should be taught, I might understand where you are coming from.

Well to speak for myself; since homosexuality is a scientifically-proved aspect of human nature, percentages of the school population are naturally going to be gay. What education do they get? Should we exclude important information about gay sex because. . .of someones religious beliefs on the matter? I don't find sexual methodology necessary at all, but in a sense the "basics" are unavoidable. Kids, gay or straight, need to know if they do or do not need a condom when performing certain sexual acts, whether if it be vaginal, anal or oral intercourse, they need to know what is safe and what is not in order to grow up to be responsible adults.

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Since many religions teach that homosexuality is a sin, there are many religiously based opinions about it. I don't know how the laws are in Canada, but I think that the subject matter would fall under "separation of church and state" unless it is a privately run school. I personally do not want anyone teaching my children (at any age) something contrary to my religious beliefs. If you would enlighten me about what kinds of things about homosexuality that you think should be taught, I might understand where you are coming from.

Education falls completely under provincial jurisdiction, so it depends on the province. Quebec has an entirely secural school system, but Ontario maintains public secular schools and Catholic schools. Although, the amendments were made in consultation with the officials in the Catholic school system. I also agree that parents need not subject their children to sex education they disagree with on some personal level, opting out of sex-ed classes is allowed in Ontario.

Personally I think any education on the matter, besides the current state of pretending it doesn't exist at all, would be better than nothing. I think some basic things to start with above that would be that homosexuality is not a mental illness, is not just about anal sex, and is not about wanting to be a woman.

The stigma against homosexuality is a huge problem in teenagers, with gay teens having three times the suicide rate of others. I am of course in favor of affirmative education on the subject that teaches it is OK to be gay and you can be happy being gay, but I'm willing to start with small steps and work towards a middle ground.

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Personally I think any education on the matter, besides the current state of pretending it doesn't exist at all, would be better than nothing. I think some basic things to start with above that would be that homosexuality is not a mental illness, is not just about anal sex, and is not about wanting to be a woman.

The stigma against homosexuality is a huge problem in teenagers, with gay teens having three times the suicide rate of others. I am of course in favor of affirmative education on the subject that teaches it is OK to be gay and you can be happy being gay, but I'm willing to start with small steps and work towards a middle ground.

YES exactly. Soooo many kids, especially here in America, have so much anxiety over being gay, some of them being led to believe that it is a mental illness and can be "cured". They usually end up either forcing themselves into unhappy heterosexual relationships, growing up with a sense of self-hate and disgust or ending up committing suicide.

There is so much antagonism and misunderstanding towards homosexuality during the middle and high school years. I remember back in 7th grade being made fun of because everyone had a paranoia that I was gay because I didn't play sports and was too shy to ask any girls out. ("going out" at that age means that you can hold hands lol)

Btw, when I say "kids" I mean teens. I do not think pre-pubescent kids should be getting any real information on sex at all.

I'd say those ages are a little young, but I'll echo Virgil on this; I don't know what is exactly the right age for teaching sexuality. And I'm all for teaching gender identity. I would tend to think that schools should teach this after heterosexual behavior. Why? Because I think that sexuality instruction (to young kids) should first be couched in biological/reproductive language. Homosexuality, by its nature, requires addressing sociological, identity, and other issues which are more complicated than the biological imperative to reproduce.

I could be convinced otherwise; I'm just writing off the top of my head. Good topic Pip. What do you think?

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

I find it appalling how many public schools here in America disregard sex education almost entirely and what I find more appalling is all of this ridiculous money spent on abstinence education. Now tell me, were can you point out abstinence ever working? And guess what? Even if it does work, the poor kids are going to rush themselves into a hasty marriage just so that they can finally have sex.

Homosexual sex should be taught side-by-side with heterosexual sex (maybe with less emphasis though)

Your perspective is not shared by everyone.
Public schools should be teaching the reproductive system...and that is it. Everything else treads upon opinion and violates the religious rights of many.

Well to speak for myself; since homosexuality is a scientifically-proved aspect of human nature...

Again, your perspective is not shared by all. Try considering that other people do not agree with the conclusions. If you want people to be tolerant of your opinions and lifestyle, then you need to be tolerant of their ideas, opinions, and beliefs.

This is NOT something for public schools.

Originally Posted by The Comedian

I'd say those ages are a little young, but I'll echo Virgil on this; I don't know what is exactly the right age for teaching sexuality. And I'm all for teaching gender identity. I would tend to think that school should teach this after heterosexual behavior. Why? Because I think that sexuality instruction (to young kids) should first be couched in biological/reproductive language. Homosexuality, by its nature, requires addressing sociological, identity, and other issues which are more complicated than the biological imperative to reproduce.

I could be convinced otherwise; I'm just writing off the top of my head. Good topic Pip. What do you think?

I think that may be a fair assessment, Comedian. There's also the fact that we predominantly grow up couched in traditional homes where we're taught concepts of babies having both a mommy and daddy from a very early age before we understand the biological aspects of it. As a result, children are probably more likely to understand heterosexuality better at an earlier age. I do think it would be a good idea just to introduce the idea that there are people who don't fit the usual pattern from an early age though, without needing to go into detail. My inclination is that around 11-12, before most kids enter puberty is probably a good age to begin.

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Your perspective is not shared by everyone.
Public schools should be teaching the reproductive system...and that is it. Everything else treads upon opinion and violates the religious rights of many.

Again, your perspective is not shared by all. Try considering that other people do not agree with the conclusions. If you want people to be tolerant of your opinions and lifestyle, then you need to be tolerant of their ideas, opinions, and beliefs.

This is NOT something for public schools.

Then what are gay teens supposed to do? If they have no information regarding safe sex are you just going to disregard their stance as equal human beings? Should they just remain ignorant of safe anal sex and end up getting AIDS?

Look, I'm not expecting everyone to agree with my point of view. But homosexuality is an aspect of the population and that particular population should not be left at the risk of diseases for the sake of not offending someones religious beliefs.

Not every religious person holds the same opinion of homosexuality that you do Bienenvu, and if they are offended so much by sex education, they should go to a private school. Is it not possible to be gay and still be a Christian?

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Then what are gay teens supposed to do? If they have no information regarding safe sex are you just going to disregard their stance as equal human beings? Should they just remain ignorant of safe anal sex and end up getting AIDS?

Those teens will make decisions according to what they perceive. You don't want someone coming in to the classroom and telling teens that homosexuality is wrong, while other people don't want someone coming into the classroom saying that it is right. It is not something for public education.

Look, I'm not expecting everyone to agree with my point of view. But homosexuality is an aspect of the population and that particular population should not be left at the risk of diseases for the sake of not offending someones religious beliefs.

Not every religious person holds the same opinion of homosexuality that you do Bienenvu, and if they are offended so much by sex education, they should go to a private school. Is it not possible to be gay and still be a Christian?

Maybe we should just leave the whole discussion out of school, and if you want it in school, then you should go to a private school. It is not the education system's place to validate or dictate what the correct moral system is.

I think the schools have a duty of promoting the intellectual and emotional health of the students that attend them. Ignoring sex-ed about homosexuality contributes to the isolation and discrimination against an already heavily marginalized group amongst teens.

I also disagree that it is not the school's business to teach certain opinions of morality. I'm happy that the schools promote the values of racial and religious tolerance, that they promote national values of freedom and democracy.

Most of all the schools have a duty to foster the intellectual and emotional well-being of their students. Failing to provide sex ed to gay students, and failing to promote the tolerance of them, indirectly harms those students.

Edit: Not to mention that implicit in leaving out mention of homosexuality entirely is the social stigma against it. Not teaching about it might as well amount to teaching against it.

Euch, I've been keeping tabs on that story and it makes me mad. One of the things that they were complaining about was that they were reading a children's book to first graders about a kid who had two mommies. Wtf? How can anyone get mad over that, it's not like they're showing them girl-on-girl porn.

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Maybe we should just leave the whole discussion out of school, and if you want it in school, then you should go to a private school.

If you want your god in a classroom, then bring your children to a Christian school. Public schools should focus on the well-being of ALL of it's students, not whether or not what they're teaching makes Christians happy.

This is the type of stuff I've been learning about in one of my units at uni. I definitely agree topics surrounding gender identity and safe sex should be taught. It seems that kids are being targeted younger and younger, from what we've learnt its got to do with the idea that various people and institutions are trying to get in and teach it first, parents try to teach it before the kids find out somewhere else or learn negative things about it, and schools do the same thing in a way, trying to teach it before they find out somewhere else. Mostly that is a result of the internet, and how easily things can be found. We looked at that in regards to pornography more that anything, and the way some parents provide it for their kids so that they are able to somewhat control it, before they stumble across all sorts of things on the internet.
I guess I feel that if kids get taught sex ed stuff too early, then won't it make them feel inclined to try it out sooner? That may not always be the case, but that would be one of my main worries.

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I also disagree that it is not the school's business to teach certain opinions of morality. I'm happy that the schools promote the values of racial and religious tolerance, that they promote national values of freedom and democracy.

Religious tolerance? You mean like the religious tolerance of Christian beliefs that are experienced here at this site? Everyone expects tolerance with the exception of Christian tolerances. Both Daniel and Juniper showed that very well by demonstrating for a Christian to enjoy tolerances, they must all go off to their private schools. Parents are responsible for their children's upbringing, NOT the state.

Why don't we consider compromising alternatives? There could be extra-curriculum groups. I am trying to show that there are other perspectives to this issue.

Wow, 1st grade. I'll echo the others in that I think the age ranges are just too young. I really think that it should be 8th grade or so before kids are really exposed to any sort of sex ed, but then I know a girl or two who was pregnant by then so I suppose there is not a good solution.

In regards to the appropriateness of teaching gender identification or anything like that, I don't have any issue with it. I think that sex ed needs to be much more extensive than what it is, and I believe the days of only teaching abstinence should come to an end. As silly as it sounds, I'm all for teaching kids the whys and hows and making sure that they are very well educated on how to have protected sex and the usage of birth control.

Bien - I think the key is not describing anything as wrong or right. Educating people about the different sexualities isn't the same as defining the morality of any. Personally I'm a very tolerant person, and I hope that I'll pass that on to my kids. I would like it to be their opinion, though, based on their interpretation of faith and information. I'll never push any of my own biases or lack there of onto my kids, and I think it perfectly possible for the school to provide information, history, etc without demanding all the kids agree or disagree with the morality. I don't mean any offense when saying this, but I think if someone wants their child to be taught solely within a specific doctrine then they should attend a school for that faith. I think it is the job of public schools to provide information, all the information, regardless of anything else.

Originally Posted by sprinks

I guess I feel that if kids get taught sex ed stuff too early, then won't it make them feel inclined to try it out sooner? That may not always be the case, but that would be one of my main worries.

Except the statistical evidence points to the fact that kids who receive comprehensive sex ed don't have sex earlier, and that abstinence programs fail to have any effect at all on how early or how often kids have sex. However, there is a statistical correlation between abstinence only programs taught in school and higher rates of STIs and teen pregnancy.

The fact is that the sex ed that promotes condom and other birth control achieves results more favorable to all groups, even those who object to it on moral grounds.

Bienvenu - You are missing the point. Like mkhockenberry said, it is in fact possible to teach about these things without saying it's right or wrong.

But even there I'm willing to go further and say that homosexuality should be taught to be just as acceptable as heterosexuality. Do you know how many kids end up killing themselves out of shame of being gay? You know how many kids grow up with self-hate and self-disguist at their own orientation? To neglect and ignore this problem in our schools is an offence to human dignity.

Bien, if you think that Christian beliefs should be something which will effect the school's curriculum, then I must say that it is you who is advocating the emerging of the church back into our schools. What I'm trying to say here is that there exists a greater demographic in America than just your form of Christianity Bienvenu. Not only that, but there is a demographic consistently at risk of being discriminated, degraded and shamed by the larger population. If we don't do anything to change that then that is a shame on the American population. Which one do you think is more oppressive Bien; offending those few Christian students who believe homosexuality is a sin or neglecting an entire demographic of their education on a very important and vital issue which will save them from diseases and social anxiety, just so that we won't "offend" a few students. I would love to hear you answer on this please

Believe it or not Bienvenu, not every Christian in America holds the same views as you. Many do, yes, but not all.

Also, I would like to comment that this feeling of "offence" by certain parents or students who are learning about homosexuality in their curriculum usually arises out of a feeling of discomfort and being used to homosexuality being a closed and secret matter not appropriate for public discourse. But then again, I'm sure plenty of kids and parents were greatly offended when the first black students were allowed into non-segragated schools. . . . . .

How old is grade 3?

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

How old is grade 3?

8 years old, I agree that the age may be a bit young, the content needs to be taught eventually though.

[QUOTE=OrphanPip;bt48082]8 years old, I agree that the age may be a bit young, the content needs to be taught eventually though.[/QUOTE]

While it is maybe still a little young, I think it should be taught around 11-12. This is puberty for most people (at least girls) and I think that's as good a time as any. Like you said, it needs to be taught eventually, and that seems like a logical time to teach it. I suppose it is still young, but I also think that it would be good. I don't know how many children have parents who avoid any mention of sex, birth control, STD prevention etc. I had those parents, and I got my education through romance novels. Not the best place to find out about anything more than technique. I ended up pregnant at 16 because of it, and it was only through a twist of fate that I had a miscarriage. That was heartbreaking as well, and I'll admit that I have always placed a bit of blame on my mum for that since I was refused when I asked to go to the doctor for birth control. Better education through the school, outside of the same old line of abstinence, would have at least meant that I was aware Planned parenthood didn't only offer abortions and I would have know where to go to get the necessary protection.