Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
again...what 5 or 6 year old understands the consequences of sex?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
It's just basic biology. What's wrong with basic biology? Kids can indeed understand basic biology.
If you have specific values regarding when to have or to not have sex then teach that. There's nothing stopping you.
But there's no reason basic biology shouldn't be taught in school. To leave out such a major part of a child's education makes it conspicuous in it's absence.
The more knowledge, the less gravitating to the taboo in later years. It should be common knowledge and matter of fact.
Teaching basic biology does not imply a value judgment.
again...what 5 or 6 year old understands the consequences of sex?
What does that have to do with teaching biology?
They aren't having sex.
You can teach them the consequences of having sex when is appropriate for you to do so. I don't see what that has to do with kids knowing the proper name for the penis and vagina.
They all have one. No one's telling them to use it.
Warning youngsters as early as kindergarten about sexual predators is absolutely the right thing to do.
Anyone at odds with this is siding with the sexual deviants.
I've taught my child about "bad touch" vs. "good touch". We didn't discuss sex or sex organs. There's a predator in my neighborhood. I've told her the truth - that he likes to hurt little children and must be avoided at all times - and she understands that. (She asked "Is he worse than Obama?" ) We never discussed sex organs or family structure as part of that conversation either.
Then don't address the issue in any way. Not mentioning it would avoid any disparagement or approval. You want the opposite, the endorsing of such arrangements. I'd choose the path of "If you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all" - the neutral ground.
I never believed in the "everyone gets a prize" mentality.
So all books that reference any type of family unit should be eliminated. No books that mention fathers, no books that mention mothers, no books that show a mother and father. Is that really what you are advocating, because if you are not then there will be kids who are impacted because they will never see a family like theirs. The neutral ground that you are suggesting is anything but neutral.
(CNSNews.com) - The Chicago Public Schools this year are mandating that the district’s kindergarten classes include sex education, fulfilling a proposal President Barack Obama supported in 2003 when he served in the Illinois state senate and later defended when he ran for president in the 2008 election cycle.
Do we really need government bureaucrats deciding all of this, just because they have confiscated out money in taxes? this is why parents need to get involved at the local and state school board level. but I would not put it past the Obama admin to try and make this a compulsory law across the nation.
School choice for kindergarteners is the right thing to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama: Sex Ed for Kindergartners ‘Is the Right Thing to Do’
) We never discussed sex organs or family structure as part of that conversation either.