As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough

Religions > Atheism > As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 17

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Michael Ejercito"
Date:	24 Feb 2007 02:04:32 PM
Object:	As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D54420
LAW OF THE LAND
Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children
Rules kids need teachings to be
'engaged and productive citizens'
Posted: February 24, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
=A9 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
David Parker and his team of lawyers approach the reporters and TV
cameras after a recent motions hearing. Left to right: Robert
Sinsheimer, Jeffrey Denner, David Parker, Neil Tassel
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught
to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding
that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."
U=2ES. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights
lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable,
indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young
children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a
number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of
religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children
..=2E. would undermine teaching and learning..."
David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have
children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They
alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School
violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children
about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.
"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary
lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of
schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of
children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.
It also is making available background information about the lengthy
dispute.
David Parker in handcuffs
"In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing
homosexuality to young children is 'reasonably related to the goals of
preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our
democracy.' According to Wolf, this means teaching 'diversity' which
includes 'differences in sexual orientation.'
"In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers' only
options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school
their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee
who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil
Rights era telling blacks the same thing - that if they can't be
served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant,
or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the U.S.
Constitution?" the organization said.
Lawyers for the families said they already had planned an appeal of
the judge's opinion.
But Wolf's claims followed very closely the reasoning submitted
earlier in a brief by Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, Massachusetts
Teachers Association, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and other
advocates for the "gay" agenda.
Earlier, Mass Resistance President Brian Camenker had wondered why
such national groups were "so interested in a parent's right to decide
what moral issues are taught to his children by adults in elementary
schools, especially regarding homosexuality."
"They must see David Parker's case as quite a threat to their ability
to push their message on children," he had said. His organization has
posted information about the judge's ruling on the Internet for
readers to review.
But the judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw
their children from classes or portions of classes where the religious
beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.
"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex
marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays,
lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and,
therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.
"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything
that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to
become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge
wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly
evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual
orientation."
And, he said, since history "includes instances of ... official
discrimination against gays and lesbians ... it is reasonable for public
educators to teach elementary school students ... different sexual
orientations."
If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children
to a private school ...[or] may also educate their children at home,"
the judge said.
Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington in April 2005 over his
request - and the school's refusal - to notify him when adults discuss
homosexuality or transgenderism with his 6-year-old kindergartner.
That despite a state law requiring such notification.
The incident made news around the nation and even Gov. Mitt Romney
agreed with Parker.
However, in April 2006 the same school presented the book "King and
King," about homosexual romances and marriage, to second-graders and
again refused to provide notification.
Parker and other parents followed with the federal civil rights
lawsuit, alleging school officials were refusing to follow state law.
David Parker's son brought home the book 'Who's in a Family?' in
school's 'Diversity Book Bag' (Image: Article 8 Alliance)
Just days later, David Parker's son, Jacob, was beaten up at Estabrook
Elementary, officials said. MassResistance said a group of 8-10 kids
surrounded him and took him out of sight of "patrolling aides," then
pummeled and beat him.
"The state must fight 'discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation' in ways that 'do not perpetuate stereotypes,'" the
lawyers for the school district had argued at an earlier motions
hearing. They also explained to the judge that, in their opinion,
parents have no right to control what ideas the school presents to
elementary schoolchildren.
"David Parker's dilemma ... threatens the parental rights and religious
freedom of every Massachusetts parent, and indirectly every parent in
America," said John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition.
"As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state's right to
force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people's children
arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney's nakedly false and
unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal."
Haskins said when the Massachusetts state Supreme Court demanded
homosexual marriages in the state, it didn't have the constitutional
or legal authority to order the governor to act or to order the
Legislature to make any changes, and the creation of same-sex
marriages in Massachusetts actually was accomplished by executive
order from Romney.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	27 Feb 2007 11:02:49 AM

In article <1172347471.911161.230690@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com> "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> writes:
Abstinence-only sex isn't bad enough, it's not even good enough.
-- cary
.

User: "Martin"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	24 Feb 2007 03:59:20 PM

Michael Ejercito wrote:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

LAW OF THE LAND
Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children

When the hell is this Gay Agenda going to be published? Maybe it's a
secret held only by the priesthood.
Has *anyone* ever seen it?
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	26 Feb 2007 02:37:06 PM

In article <45e0b53d$0$2462$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> Martin <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> writes:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

LAW OF THE LAND
Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children

When the hell is this Gay Agenda going to be published? Maybe it's a
secret held only by the priesthood.

Has *anyone* ever seen it?

But of course:
6:00 am Gym

8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)

9:00 am Hair appointment

10:00 am Shopping

12:00 pm Brunch

2:00 pm Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local
governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all
healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten
through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control
of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS
to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your
local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn
forever in Hell.

2:30 pm Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western
Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.
2:45 pm Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from
stress of world conquest

4:00 pm Cocktails

6:00 pm Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)

8:00 pm Theater

11:00 pm Bed

-- cary
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	27 Feb 2007 12:19:24 AM

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:37:06 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <45e0b53d$0$2462$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> Martin
<usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> writes:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

LAW OF THE LAND
Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children

When the hell is this Gay Agenda going to be published? Maybe it's a
secret held only by the priesthood.

Has *anyone* ever seen it?

But of course:

Naughty, naughty.
I started to post that but /I/ noticed
that it was the schedule for 1998.
Is this going to give new meaning
to the label of "dittohead"?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------
Speaking of Rush: that water he's
carrying for the Repubics is yellow
& smells, well, Repubican.

6:00 am Gym

8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)

9:00 am Hair appointment

10:00 am Shopping

12:00 pm Brunch

2:00 pm Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local
governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all
healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten
through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control
of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS
to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your
local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn
forever in Hell.

2:30 pm Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western
Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.
2:45 pm Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from
stress of world conquest

4:00 pm Cocktails

6:00 pm Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)

8:00 pm Theater

11:00 pm Bed

-- cary

User: "johac"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	25 Feb 2007 01:13:53 AM

In article <45e0b53d$0$2462$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
Martin <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

LAW OF THE LAND
Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children

When the hell is this Gay Agenda going to be published? Maybe it's a
secret held only by the priesthood.

Has *anyone* ever seen it?

No but I heard it's in the library on a shelf next to The Atheist Agenda.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.

User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	25 Feb 2007 12:30:10 AM

Martin:

Has *anyone* ever seen it?

They'll all claim to have seen it, or even to have it (just as evidence of
course, nothing to do with their sexual orientations, nooooo!, even if they
happen to be cocklick priests)... until you ask them to make a copy and
mail it to you, and offer to even pay the postage and copy bucks.
Then you witness another case of "the miracle of the disappearing
morontheist". Yup, a miracle! Glory to gaaaaaaawd! *eg*
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.

User: "Michael Ejercito"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	25 Feb 2007 12:06:28 PM

On Feb 24, 1:59 pm, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

LAW OF THE LAND
Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children

When the hell is this Gay Agenda going to be published? Maybe it's a
secret held only by the priesthood.

Has *anyone* ever seen it?

From the article:
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights
lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable,
indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young
children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
Michael
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	25 Feb 2007 08:12:49 PM

"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 24, 1:59 pm, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

LAW OF THE LAND
Judge orders 'gay' agenda
taught to Christian children

When the hell is this Gay Agenda going to be published? Maybe it's a
secret held only by the priesthood.

Has *anyone* ever seen it?

From the article:

U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights
lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable,
indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young
children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

So the article lied
Here is the decision in question.
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=wolf/pdf/parker%20opinion%20mlw.pdf
This is what was ordered:
<IV. ORDER
<In view of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
<1. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 18) as to Count
<I, which includes all of plaintiffs' federal claims, is ALLOWED.
<2. Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims are DISMISSED
<without prejudice to being reinstituted in the courts of the
<Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Clearly the judge did not "order" those things.
The court used the word "endorse" in only one sentence:
<In essence, the Supreme Court has made clear that while the state
<may not expressly or indirectly endorse a particular religion or
<suggest that religious beliefs are officially preferred over other
<beliefs, the state is expected to teach civic values as part of its
<preparation of students for citizenship.
It used the word "accept" 4 times, one of them referring to the claim
of the *plaintiff* that the schools were using particular materials
<to "indoctrinate" their young children with the beliefs that
<homosexuality and same-sex marriages are moral and acceptable,
Second:
<This "highly deferential" standard of review "does not mean,
<however, that a court must (or should) accept every allegation made
<by the complainant, no matter how conclusory or generalized."
Third:
<The defendants assert that even accepting the allegations in
<the complaint as true, the plaintiffs have failed to state a
<violation of their federal constitutional rights.
Fourth:
<"Indoctrination" is a pejorative term for
<"teaching." Among other things, "indoctrination" is defined as "to
<teach to accept a system of thought uncritically." Websters New
<Riverside Dictionary (1984 ed) at 624. It is, obviously, the duty
<of schools to teach. The complaint, even when read in the light
<most favorable to plaintiffs, indicates that "[a] parent whose
<. . . child is exposed to sensitive topics or information . . .
<remains free to discuss these matters and place them in the
<family's moral or religious context . . ." C.N., 430 F.3d at 185.3
<Therefore, the characterization of the use of the books at issue as
<"indoctrination" does not distinguish the instant case from Brown.4
Thus the assertion that the court said that schools teach kids to
"accept and endorse" homosexuality or even that they are obliged to,
is completely false.
What IS said on the subject is as follows, quoted at length:
<Plaintiffs argue that defendants' alleged conduct violates
<their fundamental liberty interest in raising their children and,
<therefore, heightened scrutiny is required concerning the
<constitutionality of that conduct. They have not asserted that
<there is not a rational basis for the defendants' decisions about
<what to teach.
<In any event, such a rational basis exists. "[A]s Thomas
<Jefferson pointed out early in our history . . . education is
<necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and
<intelligently in our open political system if we are to preserve
<freedom and independence." Yoder v. Wisconsin, 406 U.S. 205, 221
<(1972). As indicated earlier, the Supreme Court has recognized
<"'the public schools as a most vital civic institution for the
<preservation of a democratic system of government,' Abington v.
<School District v. Schemp, 374 U.S. 203, 230 (1963) (Brennan, J.,
<concurring), and as the primary vehicle for transmitting the
<'values on which our society rests.' Ambach v. Norwich, 441 U.S.
<68, 76 (1979)." Plyer, 457 U.S. at 221.
<One of the most fundamental of those values is mutual respect.
<Indeed, our nation's devotion to such respect is manifest in the
<First Amendment itself, which prohibits the majority from
<establishing an official religion or prohibiting the exercise of
<any sincere religious belief, no matter how abhorrent it may be to
<many or most people.5
<Students today must be prepared for citizenship in a diverse
<society. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003) ("the
<skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only
<be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures,
<ideas, and viewpoints"). As increasingly recognized, one dimension
<of our nation's diversity is differences in sexual orientation. In
<Massachusetts, at least, those differences may result in same-sex
<marriages.
<In addition, as described earlier, Massachusetts law prohibits
<discrimination based on sexual orientation. M.G.L. c. 76, �5.
<Consistent with this, the Department of Education requires that all
<public schools teach respect for all individuals regardless of,
<among other things, sexual orientation. 603 C.M.R. �26.06(1). It
<also encourages instruction concerning different types of families.
<Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework at 30, 33.
<Some families are headed by same-sex couples.
<The alleged conduct of the defendants at issue in this case
<was responsive to these requirements and standards. In view of the
<value to the community of preparing students to respect differences
<in their personal interactions with others and in their future
<participation in the political process, the conduct at issue in
<this case is rationally related to the goal of preparing them for
<citizenship. It is also rationally related to the goal of
<eradicating what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
<characterized as the "deep and scarring hardship" that the ban on
<same-sex marriages imposed "on a very real segment of the community
<for no rational reason." Goodridge, 440 Mass. at 341.
<Moreover, attempting to teach young, elementary school
<students to respect gays and lesbians is also rationally related to
<the legitimate pedagogical purpose of fostering an educational
<environment in which gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex
<parents will be able to learn well. As the Ninth Circuit has
<explained:
<The demeaning of young gay and lesbian students in a
<school environment is detrimental not only to their
<psychological health and well-being, but also to their
<educational development. Indeed, studies demonstrate that
<"academic underachievement, truancy, and dropout are
<prevalent among homosexual youth and are the probable
<consequences of violence and verbal and physical abuse at
<school." One study has found that among teenage victims
<of anti-gay discrimination, 75% experienced a decline in
<academic performance, 39% had truancy problems and 28%
<dropped out of school. Another study confirmed that gay
<students had difficulty concentrating in school and
<feared for their safety as a result of peer harassment,
<and that verbal abuse led some gay students to skip
<school and others to drop out altogether. Indeed, gay
<teens suffer a school dropout rate over three times the
<national average. In short, it is well established that
<attacks on students on the basis of their sexual
<orientation are harmful not only to the students' health
<and welfare, but also to their educational performance
<and their ultimate potential for success in life.
<Harper v. Poway Unified School District, 445 F.3d 1166, 1178-79
<(9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and references omitted).
<"Minds, of course, are hard to change." Howard Gardner,
<Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing our Own and Other
<People's Minds 1 (2004). "[A] key to changing a mind is to produce
<a shift in the individual's 'mental representations[.]'" Id. at 5.
<As it is difficult to change attitudes and stereotypes after they
<have developed, it is reasonable for public schools to attempt to
<teach understanding and respect for gays and lesbians to young
<students in order to minimize the risk of damaging abuse in school
<of those who may be perceived to be different.
So, what the court said was reasonable, was that kids be taught to
*understand* and *respect* others regardless of their sexual
orientation and other differences, and not to discriminate on the
basis of those differences as required by state law.
I certainly can see that the court would rule that schools should obey
the law, and that they should teach kids to obey the law.
lojbab
.

User: "Pedro Sanchez"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	25 Feb 2007 12:55:11 PM

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights
lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable,
indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young
children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?
.

User: "Michael Ejercito"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	25 Feb 2007 09:32:22 PM

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.
After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?
Michael
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	26 Feb 2007 02:35:56 PM

In article <1172460742.211367.245220@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> writes:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

No, because abstinence-only does not "accept" other approaches.
On the other hand, I know of no sex education program, even those
which go into the most exquisite details about the biology of
the act and the details of various means of contraception, which
also teaches against abstinence.
Do you? If so, you may place your evidence here:
-- cary
.

User: "Pedro Sanchez"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	26 Feb 2007 12:51:55 AM

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 AM

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

http://www.nndb.com/people/253/000049106/
.

User: "Pedro Sanchez"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	26 Feb 2007 04:49:16 PM

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.
"Sex education should be done by parents. "
No caveats needed from you. The statement stands alone.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	26 Feb 2007 06:19:59 PM

Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com>

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7uo6u2tseormf4l45v7dabm0qdpciuqujv@bbb.org:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.

"Sex education should be done by parents. "

Really. Parents know everything their kids need
to know about sex? Does that for biology and math and
developmental writing and Latin and history?

Hey, he's totally right: sex education SHOULD be done by the parents.
Problem is, it so very, very often isn't.
-- cary
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	27 Feb 2007 12:35:28 AM

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:19:59 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:

Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com>

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7uo6u2tseormf4l45v7dabm0qdpciuqujv@bbb.org:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.

"Sex education should be done by parents. "

Really. Parents know everything their kids need
to know about sex? Does that for biology and math and
developmental writing and Latin and history?

Hey, he's totally right: sex education SHOULD be done by the parents.

Problem is, it so very, very often isn't.

-- cary

But, hey!, all those other 7th graders know everything about
sex.
Like it's okay to have sex because when a couple are truly in
love and they get married, God will decide they should (or
should not) have children and He will arrange things properly.
And - you prolly know - there's no joke and no attempt at humor
in this msg.
Fortunately, at about this time, there were a couple of books
left around the house that were very clear - if a mite bit
boring - and we (sister & I) found out that mebbe the other
seventh graders (and fifth grade girls) might just not know
everything.
To this day I get kidded about using "vagina" and "penis" when
the other people are using "earthier" terms. I just chalk it up
to knowing what they were both used for at an early age.
Gray / didn't help at the drive-in though /
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	27 Feb 2007 10:58:10 AM

In article <0001HW.C2092D500072A480F0284530@news.giganews.com>

writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:19:59 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:

Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com>

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7uo6u2tseormf4l45v7dabm0qdpciuqujv@bbb.org:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.

"Sex education should be done by parents. "

Really. Parents know everything their kids need
to know about sex? Does that for biology and math and
developmental writing and Latin and history?

Hey, he's totally right: sex education SHOULD be done by the parents.

Problem is, it so very, very often isn't.

-- cary

I quiver at the thought.

And - you prolly know - there's no joke and no attempt at humor
in this msg.

Fortunately, at about this time, there were a couple of books
left around the house that were very clear - if a mite bit
boring - and we (sister & I) found out that mebbe the other
seventh graders (and fifth grade girls) might just not know
everything.

To this day I get kidded about using "vagina" and "penis" when
the other people are using "earthier" terms. I just chalk it up
to knowing what they were both used for at an early age.

Don't nobody say "rubber" any more?
-- cary
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	03 Mar 2007 12:43:47 AM

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:58:10 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <es1nv2$r5s$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):

In article <0001HW.C2092D500072A480F0284530@news.giganews.com>
grayshockley@gmail.com writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:19:59 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:

Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com>

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7uo6u2tseormf4l45v7dabm0qdpciuqujv@bbb.org:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.

"Sex education should be done by parents. "

Really. Parents know everything their kids need
to know about sex? Does that for biology and math and
developmental writing and Latin and history?

Hey, he's totally right: sex education SHOULD be done by the parents.

Problem is, it so very, very often isn't.

-- cary

I quiver at the thought.

Don't nobody say "rubber" any more?

-- cary

Only the people who watch The History Channel. / gray /
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	05 Mar 2007 10:05:18 AM

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:58:10 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <es1nv2$r5s$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):

In article <0001HW.C2092D500072A480F0284530@news.giganews.com>
grayshockley@gmail.com writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:19:59 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:

Mitchell Holman <NoemailPlease@comcast.com>

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7uo6u2tseormf4l45v7dabm0qdpciuqujv@bbb.org:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.

"Sex education should be done by parents. "

Really. Parents know everything their kids need
to know about sex? Does that for biology and math and
developmental writing and Latin and history?

Hey, he's totally right: sex education SHOULD be done by the parents.

Problem is, it so very, very often isn't.

-- cary

I quiver at the thought.

Don't nobody say "rubber" any more?

-- cary

Yes, but it's pronounced "The Pill", now.
++ gray
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	26 Feb 2007 05:55:49 PM

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7uo6u2tseormf4l45v7dabm0qdpciuqujv@bbb.org:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.

"Sex education should be done by parents. "

Really. Parents know everything their kids need
to know about sex? Does that for biology and math and
developmental writing and Latin and history?
.

User: "Michael Ejercito"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	26 Feb 2007 09:38:26 PM

On Feb 26, 3:55 pm, Mitchell Holman <NoemailPle...@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:7uo6u2tseormf4l45v7dabm0qdpciuqujv@bbb.org:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPle...@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.

"Sex education should be done by parents. "

Really. Parents know everything their kids need
to know about sex?

Maybe you ought to do research on how kids come to be, Mitchy.
Michael
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	26 Feb 2007 09:56:36 PM

"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1172547506.452787.120300@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:

On Feb 26, 3:55 pm, Mitchell Holman <NoemailPle...@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:7uo6u2tseormf4l45v7dabm0qdpciuqujv@bbb.org:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPle...@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil
rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is
reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to
teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.

"Sex education should be done by parents. "

Really. Parents know everything their kids need
to know about sex?

Maybe you ought to do research on how kids come to be, Mitchy.

Marriage outside the family still one of your taboos, is it?
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	27 Feb 2007 03:59:43 AM

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:38:26 -0600, Michael Ejercito wrote:

On Feb 26, 3:55 pm, Mitchell Holman <NoemailPle...@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:7uo6u2tseormf4l45v7dabm0qdpciuqujv@bbb.org:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPle...@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.

"Sex education should be done by parents. "

Really. Parents know everything their kids need
to know about sex?

Maybe you ought to do research on how kids come to be, Mitchy.

Michael

That works especially well in a society that has an armed
enforcer in every doctor's office.
You seem to want for the federal government to get bigger and
bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and
bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and
bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and
bigger, and bigger,
If you don't consider others to have the "right" to be free,
then - logically - you should not demand your "rights" because
you - then - would be in the same concentration camp as they.
Unless, of course, if you're planning to one of the capos.
Gray Shockley
---------------------
bushbabies, look out!
.

User: "Pedro Sanchez"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	27 Feb 2007 11:51:03 AM

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:55:49 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7uo6u2tseormf4l45v7dabm0qdpciuqujv@bbb.org:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:47:19 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2r05u2l4dej10cl1fdq33luqnfjko6st07@bbb.org:

On 25 Feb 2007 19:32:22 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:55 am, Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2007 10:06:28 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me. Why create more gay bashers?

So then you have no problem with abstinence-only sex education.

After all, it is all about "acceptance", is it not?

Sex education should be done by parents.

You mean the way the Reagans did it?

Let me say it one more time so you can understand me.

"Sex education should be done by parents. "

Really. Parents know everything their kids need
to know about sex? Does that for biology and math and
developmental writing and Latin and history?

Their is a really good reason they are called PARENTS.
The Government School System should be for teaching math, reading etc.
The Gov't School System is not for teaching those things parents are
to teach their children.
Would you be in favor of gun safety courses in public schools? With
real guns, real ammo and real target practice? Why not, it's
essentially the same thing as sex ed in schools.
.

User: "Joseph Welch"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	27 Feb 2007 11:58:54 AM

"Pedro Sanchez" <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oor8u2d8l9lfaaqj8bl2frehm7vvrj3cbg@bbb.org...

The Government School System should be for teaching math, reading etc.
The Gov't School System is not for teaching those things parents are
to teach their children.

Why should sexuality education be the sole purview of parents?

Would you be in favor of gun safety courses in public schools?

Hell yes. In fact - when I went to elementary school in Idaho, we had them.

With real guns, real ammo and real target practice?

Sure.

Why not, it's essentially the same thing as sex ed in schools.

How is it the same?
--
____________________
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by undermining American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
_____________________
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
The New Face of the Republican Party
http://tinyurl.com/y2j2yr
.

User: "Pedro Sanchez"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	27 Feb 2007 02:56:08 PM

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:58:54 -0800, "Joseph Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Pedro Sanchez" <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oor8u2d8l9lfaaqj8bl2frehm7vvrj3cbg@bbb.org...

The Government School System should be for teaching math, reading etc.
The Gov't School System is not for teaching those things parents are
to teach their children.

Why should sexuality education be the sole purview of parents?

Because the subject of sexuality is full of intimacy and close
feelings that shouldn't discussed in an open class room where you KNOW
people are going to crack jokes and spread rumors. You know this
did/does happen, why do it if it's not being taken seriously?

Would you be in favor of gun safety courses in public schools?

Hell yes. In fact - when I went to elementary school in Idaho, we had them.

With real guns, real ammo and real target practice?

Sure.

Why not, it's essentially the same thing as sex ed in schools.

How is it the same?

They're the same because teaching a subject that has nothing to do
with preparing you for higher education is not only pointless it is
harmful.
Should we have school classes for the girls on how to insert a tampon?
Let's just teach everything we can think of.
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	27 Feb 2007 05:00:15 PM

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7i69u25mk2tt51lmv23rk6aicglqdkoj0g@bbb.org:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:58:54 -0800, "Joseph Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Pedro Sanchez" <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oor8u2d8l9lfaaqj8bl2frehm7vvrj3cbg@bbb.org...

The Government School System should be for teaching math, reading etc.
The Gov't School System is not for teaching those things parents are
to teach their children.

Why should sexuality education be the sole purview of parents?

Oh, puh-leeze. Kids should be taught about preventing
colds and flu in school but not gonorhea and AIDS? What is
your hangup over basic reproductive health?

Would you be in favor of gun safety courses in public schools?

Hell yes. In fact - when I went to elementary school in Idaho, we had
them.

With real guns, real ammo and real target practice?

Sure.

Why not, it's essentially the same thing as sex ed in schools.

How is it the same?

They're the same because teaching a subject that has nothing to do
with preparing you for higher education is not only pointless it is
harmful.

Should we have school classes for the girls on how to insert a tampon?

Actually, we do. Girls PE classes, to be specific.

.

User: "Pedro Sanchez"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	28 Feb 2007 12:46:38 AM

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:00:15 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Oh, puh-leeze. Kids should be taught about preventing
colds and flu in school but not gonorhea and AIDS? What is
your hangup over basic reproductive health?

Reproductive? Sex is for either pleasure or to make a baby, their is
no other "option"
Teaching kids about the pleasures of sex in school is wrong and should
be up to parents. The more clinical side is fine, but teaching kids
how to put a condom on a banana? You don't think, just for a second,
that it might place an idea in the mind of kids they didn't already
have?
Reproductive health is fine, but teaching them about orgasms is going
to far.
Unless Clinton visits the school, it's ok then since he IS an expert.
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	28 Feb 2007 04:39:47 AM

Pedro Sanchez <Dr.PedroSanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e69au2d70p65qi5fqrb2bea7ueagg0pobe@bbb.org:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:00:15 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Oh, puh-leeze. Kids should be taught about preventing
colds and flu in school but not gonorhea and AIDS? What is
your hangup over basic reproductive health?

Reproductive? Sex is for either pleasure or to make a baby, their is
no other "option"

Teaching kids about the pleasures of sex in school is wrong and should
be up to parents. The more clinical side is fine, but teaching kids
how to put a condom on a banana? You don't think, just for a second,
that it might place an idea in the mind of kids they didn't already
have?

Reproductive health is fine, but teaching them about orgasms is going
to far.

Here is a clue: AIDS and syphillis and chlamydia are not
moral failings, they are diseases. Kids need to be taught
how to avoid them, right along with flu and colds and TB.
And no, don't go down that track of "abstinance education"
It doesn't work.
"Abstinence-only sex education is not medically sound; it has
not been endorsed by a single major medical association. The
American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics,
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the
Society for Adolescent Medicine favor comprehensive sex education
programs. In such programs, kids are encouraged to delay the onset
of sexual activity but also informed that contraceptive methods,
such as condom use, dramatically reduce the risk of unwanted
pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20070217/EDIT02/702170334/1090
.

User: "Pedro Sanchez"
Title: Re: As If Abstinence-ONly Sex Ed Were Bad Enough	28 Feb 2007 11:32:43 AM

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:39:47 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:

Reproductive health is fine, but teaching them about orgasms is going
to far.

Here is a clue: AIDS and syphillis and chlamydia are not
moral failings, they are diseases. Kids need to be taught
how to avoid them, right along with flu and colds and TB.

Condoms, although everyone loves to think so, are not 100% effective
in the prevention of STDS.

And no, don't go down that track of "abstinance education"
It doesn't work.

If you cannot swim then don't get in the water. You cannot drown if
you stay away from water.
You say "abstinance education" won't work but you MEANT to say
"abstinance education" is something people don't like to do.
Funny that you're against teaching "abstinance education" in public
schools but have no problem teaching little kids how to have proper
sex acts... That makes no sense.
What about some school classes on pornography? We could just show
videos and tell students about the kind of money actors make etc?
Where do we draw the line with all this "education"?
.

Page 1 of 17