# "Parental rights" my ass (sex ed) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 4, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373 "2005-05-04T14:42:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![betenoir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@betenoir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoir)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/1 "2005-05-04T14:42:45Z")
If there were any lingering doubts that the controversy over what to teach in sex ed was really about interferring with parental right (“I don’t want my child taught things I don’t believe in”) here’s this: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=44099](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44099) Obviously these parents don’t want their kids taught that homosexuality is normal, or how to use a condom. Fine. (Well, not “fine” by me but that’s another issue.) They don’t have to be: "Parents must sign permission forms for their children to participate in the sex-ed curriculum, which is part of a semester-long health education program, the Washington Post reported. Families also have the option of putting their children in an alternative, including an abstinence-only program. But the opponents argue the opt-out provision discriminates against these children because it forcibly segregates them. " Their kids don’t have to participate but they’re going ahead with the laws suit anyway. Inotherwords, I don’t want my child taught this and I want to forcibly prevent YOUR child from being taught this as well. Regardless, apparently, of the wishes of those other parents. Assholes. (I wouldn’t normally link to a World Net article as a legitimite source, but sadly, this is the sort of thing they’re likely to get right.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/2 "2005-05-04T14:44:51Z")
Yeah, this is pretty stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/3 "2005-05-04T16:02:40Z")
I can see their point. I feel the same way about prayer in schools and even the Pledge of Alleigence. The first we don’t have, the second I choose to let my child participate in even though I feel strongly that a) a kindergartner can’t understand the Pledge and shouldn’t pledge what they can’t understand and b) Under God has no place in it. But to make a stink based on my beliefs makes my kid look like a weirdo (and he is a Christian, there is that whole “he’s a kindergartner thing,” but still I respect his right to make his own religious choices). ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/4 "2005-05-04T16:05:48Z")
Just another instance of a loud contingent of supposed Christians forcing their will upon everyone. I’m sure if they win in court they wouldn’t consider it judicial activism. ---
**Author:** ![TwoTrouts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9adbd/32.png) [@TwoTrouts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwoTrouts)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/5 "2005-05-04T16:06:10Z")
> [@betenoir](#): > > (I wouldn’t normally link to a World Net article as a legitimite source, but sadly, this is the sort of thing they’re likely to get right.) Sadly, this story is quite true. I live in the Montgomery County School District and have watched as these groups become more active and vocal. I even received an email from a local Catholic church member, asking for people to join with this movement! I told them to take me off their mailing list immediately because I am in favor of the sex education curriculum as proposed by the school district. I find it troubling that the opt-out provision is viewed as unsatisfactory, so in the “best interest” of the children, this group will force its will upon us all. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/6 "2005-05-04T16:58:27Z")
Hmmm. Assuming the linked article is accurate in its portrayal of the curriculum, there were a few points that struck me: - Many religious denominations do not believe that “loving people of the same sex is immoral (sinful).” - “Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.” - "Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression."The first two points could be seen as taking a particular religious view-point, while the third could be seen as an anti-religious stance, rather than the neutral position on religion that one would expect from a government institution. Of course, a lot would depend on how those points were actually taught in class. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/7 "2005-05-04T17:10:57Z")
> [@betenoir](#): > > Their kids don’t have to participate but they’re going ahead with the laws suit anyway. Inotherwords, I don’t want my child taught this and I want to forcibly prevent YOUR child from being taught this as well. Regardless, apparently, of the wishes of those other parents. If public schools were to have a prayer session, but families had the option of putting their children in an alternative, non-prayer setting, would you agree this was sufficient? ---
**Author:** ![evilbeth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/evilbeth/32/2268_2.png) [@evilbeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/evilbeth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/8 "2005-05-04T17:18:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If public schools were to have a prayer session, but families had the option of putting their children in an alternative, non-prayer setting, would you agree this was sufficient? No, but then at least around here I don’t have the option of putting my child in a secular private school as there aren’t any. The Christians have their choice of Christian schools who would never dream of teaching this sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/9 "2005-05-04T17:21:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If public schools were to have a prayer session, but families had the option of putting their children in an alternative, non-prayer setting, would you agree this was sufficient? So far as I’m aware, there’s nothing in the Constitution about the government endorsing sex-ed. So I don’t really see how your question is remotely meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/10 "2005-05-04T17:30:06Z")
I thought about this parallel too – I’m an atheist, and if I had kids, I’d have misgivings about the schools making them take part in mandatory expressions of religious faith. So I thought at first glance that the parents who objected were simply asking for the same thing: freedom from being singled out as a ‘weirdo’ by not participating. On reflection, though, it sounds like the schools are providing for parents’ every possible choice, by having (apparently multiple) alternative classes available, and requiring parental consent before allowing the kids to take part in any of the classes. In light of this, I say suing is petty, and probably just an attempt to get press. > [@Dangerosa](#): > > I can see their point. I feel the same way about prayer in schools and even the Pledge of Alleigence. The first we don’t have, the second I choose to let my child participate in even though I feel strongly that a) a kindergartner can’t understand the Pledge and shouldn’t pledge what they can’t understand and b) Under God has no place in it. But to make a stink based on my beliefs makes my kid look like a weirdo (and he is a Christian, there is that whole “he’s a kindergartner thing,” but still I respect his right to make his own religious choices). ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/11 "2005-05-04T17:31:16Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > Hmmm. Assuming the linked article is accurate in its portrayal of the curriculum, there were a few points that struck me: > > - Many religious denominations do not believe that “loving people of the same sex is immoral (sinful).” > > - “Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.” > > - "Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression."The first two points could be seen as taking a particular religious view-point, while the third could be seen as an anti-religious stance, rather than the neutral position on religion that one would expect from a government institution. Of course, a lot would depend on how those points were actually taught in class. I agree, they should leave that out, since it’s not really relevant. Also: > [@](#): > > “[A]bstinence until marriage” is detrimental to “GLBT youth.” That brings politics in (gay marriage and whatnot), which creates more of a mess. Instead, they should say, “The choice to become sexually active is up to each individual person. It is completely your choice. If you choose to engage in sex responsibly, that’s fine. If you choose not to, that’s fine too.” Because just as I hate pushing abstinence only, I also do not want kids to get the idea that they HAVE to be sexually active to be “cool”. Or that “you’re still a virgin? You’re a LOSER!” We need to get away from the whole virgin or whore complex. Other than that, I don’t have a problem with any of that. **Bricker** , prayer doesn’t have jackshit to do with EDUCATION, at least they’re not learning anything there. Sex ed is about teaching. ---
**Author:** ![MRirian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3be4f8/32.png) [@MRirian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MRirian)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/12 "2005-05-04T17:41:28Z")
Give the students some credit. They CAN think for themselves, you know. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/13 "2005-05-04T17:59:19Z")
> [@TwoTrouts](#): > > Sadly, this story is quite true. I live in the Montgomery County School District and have watched as these groups become more active and vocal. I even received an email from a local Catholic church member, asking for people to join with this movement! I told them to take me off their mailing list immediately because I am in favor of the sex education curriculum as proposed by the school district. I find it troubling that the opt-out provision is viewed as unsatisfactory, so in the “best interest” of the children, this group will force its will upon us all. Is the part about teaching religion also true? If so, are groups such as the ACLU also suing or otherwise opposing the program? It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to see WND exaggerate the religious instruction or leave the bit about the ACLU or similar groups also opposing the cirriculum out of their story, so I’m glad we’ve got someone in the area who can give us the Straight Dope. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/14 "2005-05-04T18:04:50Z")
Three different objections to my analogy… > [@evilbeth](#): > > No, but then at least around here I don’t have the option of putting my child in a secular private school as there aren’t any. The Christians have their choice of Christian schools who would never dream of teaching this sort of thing. I don’t understand this. If the issue is what’s being permissibly taught in public schools, how is it relevant what private schools are offering? > [@Miller](#): > > So far as I’m aware, there’s nothing in the Constitution about the government endorsing sex-ed. So I don’t really see how your question is remotely meaningful. I agree that objecting to prayer on Constitutional grounds is valid. But one of the reasons that religiously-based conduct in public schools is forbidden, even if a student may opt out, is the conclusion by the courts that opting out is not enough to remove the coercive aspect that religion in schools brings. Why is that truth not also valid for the sex-ed issue? > [@Guinastasia](#): > > **Bricker** , prayer doesn’t have jackshit to do with EDUCATION, at least they’re not learning anything there. Sex ed is about teaching. The parents objecting to this course argue that it’s not about education, either. They argue that it’s teaching, as fact, assertions that are NOT objective fact. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/15 "2005-05-04T18:14:27Z")
> [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > I thought about this parallel too – I’m an atheist, and if I had kids, I’d have misgivings about the schools making them take part in mandatory expressions of religious faith. > > So I thought at first glance that the parents who objected were simply asking for the same thing: freedom from being singled out as a ‘weirdo’ by not participating. > > On reflection, though, it sounds like the schools are providing for parents’ every possible choice, by having (apparently multiple) alternative classes available, and requiring parental consent before allowing the kids to take part in any of the classes. > > In light of this, I say suing is petty, and probably just an attempt to get press. As a parent, I’d think it would depend on the “alternative” classes. If my child was the ONLY kid to “opt out” or only the weirdos ended up in the alternative class, I could understand parent concern. If it was more the choice of “band” or “choir” - two equally viable choices neither of which stigmatize the kids that choose it, not a problem. At the same time, that would also indicate to me that perhaps my values were out of sync with the general community values - and perhaps I’d better spend more time and energy teaching my kids about my family’s sexual values rather than trying to force my values on everyone else. (Personally, as a parent, I think there are LOTS of parents who want good explict sex education (and drug education, etc.) because it gets them off the hook about having those conversations with their kids. They KNOW those conversations are important, but its easier coming from the football coach.) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/16 "2005-05-04T18:27:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree that objecting to prayer on Constitutional grounds is valid. But one of the reasons that religiously-based conduct in public schools is forbidden, even if a student may opt out, is the conclusion by the courts that opting out is not enough to remove the coercive aspect that religion in schools brings. > > Why is that truth not also valid for the sex-ed issue? It may be valid. So what? There’s no law against the government enodrsing sex ed. The school can be as coercive about the issue as they like, and if some parents don’t like, they can find a private school for their kids. So far as I’m aware, schools are under no obligation to allow the opt-out clause in the first place. That there is still a coercive element to the opt-out plan is meaningless if there’s no requirement that the school not be coercive on this subject in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/17 "2005-05-04T18:32:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The parents objecting to this course argue that it’s not about education, either. They argue that it’s teaching, as fact, assertions that are NOT objective fact. Given the [track record](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html) of assertions made in abstinence-only programs, I would say that if this is truly the concern of the parents then they’re barking up the wrong tree. At this point I would trust comprehensive sex-ed program far more than I would an abstinence-only program to get the “objective facts” straight. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/18 "2005-05-04T18:45:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > he parents objecting to this course argue that it’s not about education, either. They argue that it’s teaching, as fact, assertions that are NOT objective fact. Can you give an example of something taught in sex-ed that is not an objective fact? ---
**Author:** ![PinkMarabou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ec9cab/32.png) [@PinkMarabou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PinkMarabou)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/19 "2005-05-04T18:48:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The parents objecting to this course argue that it’s not about education, either. They argue that it’s teaching, as fact, assertions that are NOT objective fact. What’s not factual about full sex-ed? The optional abstinence program I would be FAR more worried about not being factual. But biology is supported as science, and by teaching what we know now in the medical and scientific world about STD’s, pregnancy, and birth control there should be no reason to question it as not be factually true. Millions of dollars have gone into testing and research, even abstinence programs. Granted, there is probably more we have yet to learn, but educating these teens (whose hormones are raging BTW) about what we know to be factually true at this point in history is not a bad thing. The parents are trying to fight human nature with bible beating, and we all know that does NOT work. As a parent, would you rather your child learn all the up-to-date information we have on sexuality or let their peers give whatever information they’ve learned or the horror stories parents try to tell their kids? Maybe I’m in the minority, but I would trust the schools to do a better job than most parents on this subject. Most people don’t know all the information. Wasn’t there a congressman recently who said AIDS can be transferred through tears? That’s scary! The fact of the matter is these parents have their heads in the sand and think their children will not participate in sex until marriage. They are sorely mistaken, [in fact the numbers increase when an abstinence program is in place.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568/) I understand that can be a logical fallacy, but you need to understand: they are going to do it regardless of how their parents feel. Why not fully educate them? The schools are in place to give an EDUCATION. Church is the place for moral scolding. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/20 "2005-05-04T18:51:23Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > Hmmm. Assuming the linked article is accurate in its portrayal of the curriculum, there were a few points that struck me: […] The first two points could be seen as taking a particular religious view-point, while the third could be seen as an anti-religious stance, rather than the neutral position on religion that one would expect from a government institution. Of course, a lot would depend on how those points were actually taught in class. But how much difference would that make, really? It sounds to me, at least with how it’s presented in that article, that the curriculum seriously over-steps its bounds, even for a opt-out class. Why would a public school sex-ed class be mentioning Jesus or religion at all? It should be taken from a biological and sociological perspective, completely free of religion and value judgement. _This_ is what causes pregnancy, _this_ is what transmits diseases, _this_ is the predominant scientific view of psychologists and sociologists concerning sexual behavior and orientation, everything else: ask your parents. WorldNetDaily is going to put everything into a religious perspective, judging from the “Christian Persecution!!!” banner ad on their site, and the bias of that article. Is there a more objective site that tells what the curriculum is _really_ saying? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373.md?page=2)