# "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:** 5
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/81 "2005-05-05T18:34:19Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Bricker** , the Bible does not explicitly condemn homosexuality in either Old or New Testaments. That is an interpretative conclusion which is not universal to the denominations who use those books. What is the alternative explanation of the bit he quoted above? I’ve seen you go into depth about the “arsenokoites” passage elsewhere and I’m curious what the deal is with this one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/82 "2005-05-05T18:36:14Z")
> [@modernhamlet](#): > > Cite? > > I return to my point about evolution, which is obviously not “religiously neutral material”… Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 1971 Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 1989 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 1992 Evolution does not fail the tests mandated by the case law above. It, itself, is not held to be a religious viewpoint. Teaching that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, that many religions accept homosexual behavior as moral, and that religion has often been used to promote hatred and bigotry IS teaching a religious viewpoint. It fails the _Lemon_ test’s excessive entanglement prong, it fails _Allegheny County_’s endorsement test, and even with the opt-in/opt-out provisions, fails _Lee v. Weisman_’s coercion test. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/83 "2005-05-05T18:39:01Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Bricker** , the Bible does not explicitly condemn homosexuality in either Old or New Testaments. That is an interpretative conclusion which is not universal to the denominations who use those books. You need to take that off of your “objective facts” list, it doesn’t belong. > > Perhaps you could modify it and say that some Christian and Jewish denominations _interpret_ the bible as condemning homosexual acts but not all of them do and many Christians and Jews would vehemently dispute those interpretations. Would I be safe in saying that MOST Christian denominations interpret it thusly? Or, better still, that the most popular or largest Christian denominations so interpret it? In any event, you’re making my point. How to correctly interpret the Old Testament is simply not the right subject for high school sex-ed to be covering. ---
**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 5, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/84 "2005-05-05T18:55:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What is the alternative explanation of the bit he quoted above? I’ve seen you go into depth about the “arsenokoites” passage elsewhere and I’m curious what the deal is with this one. I don’t want to derail the thread too much or necessarily argue the point myself, but there are some liberal scholars and denominations who argue that the passage refers only to Canaanite cultic prostitution, specifically to the male transvestite prostitutes who served those temples. The argument is that this was a prohibition on an idolotous _religious_ practice, not the _per se_ sexual practice of homosexuality. This particular argument is not a hill I would pick to die on myself but my point is that it _is_ the way some Christians interpret it and that it’s at least disputable whether that passage was intended to condemn all homosexual acts. There is also the argument that Leviticus is no longer applicable to Christians because Christians are not bound by Mosaic Law. For the same reason Christians can eat lobster, they can be gay. That’s the argument anyway. > [@](#): > > Would I be safe in saying that MOST Christian denominations interpret it thusly? Or, better still, that the most popular or largest Christian denominations so interpret it? Yes, but not all individual Christians within those denominations necessarily agree with those interpretations. My wife is a Catholic who doesn’t believe homosexuality is a sin. She is not unusual in that regard. > [@](#): > > In any event, you’re making my point. How to correctly interpret the Old Testament is simply not the right subject for high school sex-ed to be covering. I think that’s what I said. isn’t it? ---
**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 5, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/85 "2005-05-05T18:58:50Z")
Oops, my last two quoted sections should have been attributed to **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/86 "2005-05-05T19:08:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I think that’s what I said. isn’t it? Then we agree. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/87 "2005-05-05T19:49:24Z")
\*\* whale and potted petunia spontaneously materialize in the upper atmosphere \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/88 "2005-05-05T20:05:06Z")
All this “agreement” is all very nice, but as far as I can tell, it seems like some people believe that it is possible to teach how to have sex, gay or straight without putting one’s life in danger, even to gay people is morally neutral, even if one accidentally winds up makinging it seem like homo-and heterosexually are somehow equal. 😉 The other side seem to be saying the opposite. As far as I can tell, human decency leans in the direction of teaching safe sex. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/89 "2005-05-05T20:08:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > These parents are not pushing for evolution-as-theory – are they? So what relevance does your comment have to this case? _runs in out of breath_ Sorry I’m late to reply. Some of us don’t have internet access at work. 😛 Just making a little joke at your comment of the parents not wanting assertions in schools and drawing a parallel to the recent Kansas I.D. scuttlebutt. Ahhh, nothing makes a joke like having to go back and explain it. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/90 "2005-05-05T20:22:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because you are deciding that the best decision possible is something that the religious viewpoint disagrees with. And you’re cherry-picking in order to do it. No, I’m assuming that the best decision possible is one reached independantly, by the students, with as great a command of the facts involved as possible. > [@](#): > > I assume you would object to course material which taught my bullets, yes? You assume incorrectly. My response to your bullet points is much the same as that of **Diogenes**. > [@](#): > > They are factual, but they invite a conclusion that you don’t like. And it’s a conclusion that is wrong for a public school to advance, because it relies heavily on religious teaching. Once again, you’re confusing terms. _Inviting_ a conclusion is not the same as _advancing_ a conclusion. Inviting a conclusion is a _good_ thing. Inviting a conclusion means that the student has been encouraged to think about the facts and see where they lead. So let the students have the facts…_all_ the facts. Sure, tell them what mainstream religions think about homosexuality, but tell them that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality too. Tell them that same-sex marriage isn’t legal in most states, but tell them about examples of homosexual behaviour in nature as well. And let them reach their own conclusions from as well-informed a position as possible. > [@](#): > > NO - Dr. James Dobson didn’t get to use public school time to promote his view. He did it on his own nickel. You don’t get to use public school time to counteract his religious views with your own. I’m not asking to. I’m saying that we should use public school time to _educate_ students, as comprehensively as possible, on the complete _spectrum_ of views regarding homosexuality. Don’t _promote_ any one view, but _invite_ the students to form their own. Isn’t that why we’re educating students in the first place? And while I realize the next bit wasn’t addressed to me, I think it’s relevant to my train of thought: > [@](#): > > It would not be appropriate to point out that Jesus said nothing - because then you invite the debate wherein the kid responds, “OK, it wasn’t Jesus, but God wrote the Bible, and He said, ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it > is an abomination.’” What then? How about the teacher says “Oh, you’ve read the Bible? Good. If you’re interested in it, I encourage you to read the whole thing and form your own conclusions.” ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/91 "2005-05-05T20:31:11Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > How about the teacher says “Oh, you’ve read the Bible? Good. If you’re interested in it, I encourage you to read the whole thing and form your own conclusions.” While Bricker is _deeply_ in love with the term ‘cherry picking’, I doubt he’d admit that they way the Bible is used to persecute gays and lesbians is cherry picking from the Bible as well as willful misinterpretation to support bias. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/92 "2005-05-05T21:12:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Judging only by the link in the OP, this curriculum presents as fact certain things that invite the classroom participant to draw religious conclusions. I’m taking the link in the OP with a grain of salt, as it’s pretty heavily tilted. I’ve been reading up on the issue in other places, and some of the stuff on WND really looks silly (actually hateful, but so poorly done that it becomes silly) after doing so. For instance they are indignant that the curriculum doesn’t teach about the STDs that you can get from gay sex. Well, the course **does** teach about STDs, so I can only assume that their argument is that it doesn’t ascribe certain STDs to gays, which perhaps they think it should. If you have an alternative explanation for their wording, I’d be interested to hear it. > [@](#): > > That’s untrue. I support same-sex marriage. I want to see it decided on a state level by the legislature or the people of each state, not by judicial fiat at the state level and certainly not by judicial fiat at the federal level. Then there is a disconnect somewhere. Here are some quotes from [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277181) thread: > [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree that there is no rational reason to forbid same-sex marriage, **which I am repeatedly on record here as being aganst**. I support civil unions that provide all the rights and privileges of marriage, but I do not agree that the word “marriage” can properly refer to a same-sex pairing. > [@Bricker](#): > > As I noted above, I will not work to persuade others to approve same-sex marriage, **since I don’t support it**. Perhaps you and I have different opinions of what constitutes “support?” > [@](#): > > I am okay with civil unions, as long as they confer the exact same legal benefits – including taxes – as marriage. How can they, if this is a state issue? You’re even against applying “full faith and credit” to the issue. > [@](#): > > I realize that a quick reading of my posts here my invite a different conclusion - one that you’ve evidently drawn. But I find myself so often arguing against same-sex marriage here because same-sex marriage is almost universally proposed by means that run counter to what I believe are our notions of self-governance. Yes, it invites the opposite conclusion, in fact. > [@](#): > > Technically true. So how would YOU feel about my proposed: "The majority of people in the United States identify as Christian; No problem whatsoever. > [@](#): > > Homosexual acts are forbidden, and considered immoral (sinful) by the majority of Christian denominations; While I do indeed believe this to be true, I’d only be fine with it if they actually had cites to support it, and were willing to state which religions were either fine with or divided over the issue. It seems a bit silly to do such a laundry list, but there is no monolithic “Christian Church”, so it’s necessary if you wish to try and make factual statements from all sides (which seems to be your point). > [@](#): > > The Bible explictly condemns homosexual activity; This is an area with which Dio is much more familiar than I, but there are a shitload of other things the Bible condemns that many Christians would rather not be made widely known. I’m fine with teaching one if we’re willing to teach them all, but I’d like agreement that it does condemn it before we do so. I don’t think we have that yet. Oh, and if someone wants to not teach them because they were “fulfilled” or some such nonsense, then they’re going to need a **lot** better evidence to support that. Even Christians can’t agree on whether that is true or not. > [@](#): > > Only one out of the fifty states actually permits same-sex marriage, and the history of that state’s law was changed by the courts, not the legislature" curriculum? Sure, if we can also let them know that until the last decade or so, hardly any states had laws explicitly forbidding same-sex marriages. Let’s also throw in the names of the countries that share our stance on it, such as Iran, as well as those which allow such marriages. > [@](#): > > All those facts are true. If someone decides, on their own, that this means homosexual acts are immoral and not favored by the majority, then that’s their opinion, but not based on any fact taught in that class. > > Right? Or not? Sure. I’m a fan of the facts. I don’t have a problem with teaching all of the facts regarding the matter, if we must teach any of them. Personally, I don’t think the Bible belongs in the debate. I can see why both sides want to bring it in, but I disagree with both sides on that issue. Stating that it’s a “fact” that something is printed in some book that we don’t know to be “factual”, opens the door for way too many people with way too many agendas (on all sides), thus adding unneeded noise to the course being taught. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/93 "2005-05-05T22:18:48Z")
> [@vetbridge](#): > > I know it’s probably an archaic view, but why not leave the entire topic of sex to the parents? My kids are 10 and 13 and are totally competent on the biologic aspects of reproduction. They have met friends of mine who are far from mainstream sexually and they understand what is going on. > > Our schools are not doing an adequate job of teaching basic math/science/etc. I am happy to do my part in taking up the slack. Well, there are enough objective facts about sexuality and reproduction that can be removed from any moral/religious/“normal” connotations that are simply good for people to know. Relying on kids to disseminate (heh) that information to each other on their own just perpetuates ignorance. I’ve heard from adults who’d been sexually active for years and still didn’t know about pre-ejaculatory emissions (they thought that the withdrawal method was 100% safe), how STD’s are spread, that vaginal contraceptives are sufficient to prevent STD’s, etc. Personally, I’d want to remove _any_ of the sociological aspects of sex (is homosexuality “normal”, is it “okay” to masturbate, etc.) from a state-run health class altogether. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/94 "2005-05-05T22:23:26Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > **Bricker** , how do you feel about the hypothetical I posed earlier, reprinted here for your convenience? > > On the other hand, what if, while teaching a strictly fact-base, biological-oriented section on homosexuality, a kid in the class says something like, “I’m against homosexuality because Jesus says gay people go to hell.” Would it not be appropriate, under those circumstances, to point out that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, one way or the other? Well, you didn’t ask me, but that’s never stopped me from offering my opinion before: IMO it _wouldn’t_ be appropriate, because it’s a sex-ed class, not a comparative religion or theology class. A teacher in that situation should respond that the aim of the class wasn’t to make a value judgement on homosexuality one way or the other, just to explain how we understand it from a biological and sociological perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/95 "2005-05-05T23:52:58Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Then there is a disconnect somewhere. Here are some quotes from [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277181) thread: > > Perhaps you and I have different opinions of what constitutes “support?” I take it you didn’t read the full thread. Please read post #366 and those following it. Then come back. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/96 "2005-05-06T04:25:04Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > So let the students have the facts…_all_ the facts. Sure, tell them what mainstream religions think about homosexuality, but tell them that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality too. Tell them that same-sex marriage isn’t legal in most states, but tell them about examples of homosexual behaviour in nature as well. And let them reach their own conclusions from as well-informed a position as possible. Sure, but than actually tell them _all_ the facts: 1. There is no proof that one religion is more valid than any other; 2. There is no proof that any religion is valid at all; 3. There is no proof that Jesus was the son of god; 4. There is no proof that there is a god. 5. Because there is no proof of any of this, it is irrelevant what religious leaders past and present have to say on the matter. So, to base your perception of yourself on what religion tells you is to base that perception upon what, in all probability, is a bunch of lies. Geez, if you really want to help kids break them of this strange compulsion to believe in Magic Sky Pixies and Pink Unicorns and get them really thinking for themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/97 "2005-05-06T11:41:29Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Sure, but than actually tell them _all_ the facts: 1. There is no proof that one religion is more valid than any other; 2. There is no proof that any religion is valid at all; 3. There is no proof that Jesus was the son of god; 4. There is no proof that there is a god. 5. Because there is no proof of any of this, it is irrelevant what religious leaders past and present have to say on the matter. > So, to base your perception of yourself on what religion tells you is to base that perception upon what, in all probability, is a bunch of lies. > Geez, if you really want to help kids break them of this strange compulsion to believe in Magic Sky Pixies and Pink Unicorns and get them really thinking for themselves. You don’t think that course of instruction in a public school might create a teeny tiny First Amendment problem? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/98 "2005-05-06T12:33:16Z")
As I read the list I wonder how much is edited, and how much is part of the prepared lecture and how much is taught as “answers to questions” I see class going something like this: Teacher: Today we are going to be discussing homosexuality. [some sort of explaination of same sex preference]. You should know that most experts consider same sex preference to be perfectly normal. Its also normal to do sex play with same sex friends when you are young, this doesn’t prove long term orientation. Yes, Polly, you have a question? Polly: My minster says homosexuals are bad and Jesus said it was a sin. Teacher: There are many Christian faiths that don’t believe homosexuality is sinful. And Jesus never commented on homosexuality in the bible. Polly: But the Bible says its a sin. Teacher (left out of the article): The Bible mentions homosexuality several times in the Old and New Testament. Since this is not a bible study course, I’d encourage anyone who is interested to look up these passages and interpret them in context for themselves. etc… Somehow, I don’t think these bullet points are being put in front of eighth graders as a Powerpoint presentation. ---
**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 6, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/99 "2005-05-06T14:49:57Z")
> [@TwoTrouts](#): > > Okay, here’s the Straight Dope as I know it. > > (snip) > > After the meeting, a small group of us went to view the video. it was met with a “whatever” bored attitude. Unless they have re-edited the video, there was NO bashing of any religion! I do not recall religion ever cropping up in the video at all. There was NO promotion of promiscuous or homosexual behavior! There WAS plenty of discussion about STDs and the dangers of unprotected sex. The video primarily stressed the biological changes the kids would be going through from a scientific background. I believe these protesting parental groups are trying to stir up hysteria to further another agenda. I will let you know as my daughter is in 8th grade and will be starting the sex-ed part of health today. Thanks, **TT**. That sounds more like the Montgomery County I remember than the one in the article. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/100 "2005-05-06T15:16:52Z")
> [@TwoTrouts](#): > > Okay, here’s the Straight Dope as I know it. There was a meeting for all interested parents _at the beginning of the school year \* regarding the upcoming changes to the 8th grade curriculum. This meeting, hosted by the principal, covered the changes in grading, testing, the new emphasis on math skills, AND the sex-education section of the health curriculum. They even had the video set up and running in a seperate classroom for all interested parents to view! There was a handout describing what would be covered that had to be signed by all parents, plus the opt-out form. Of the_ handful\* of parents that attended the meeting, not one spoke up with any concerns about this curriculum! After the meeting, a small group of us went to view the video. it was met with a “whatever” bored attitude. Unless they have re-edited the video, there was NO bashing of any religion! I do not recall religion ever cropping up in the video at all. There was NO promotion of promiscuous or homosexual behavior! There WAS plenty of discussion about STDs and the dangers of unprotected sex. The video primarily stressed the biological changes the kids would be going through from a scientific background. I believe these protesting parental groups are trying to stir up hysteria to further another agenda. I will let you know as my daughter is in 8th grade and will be starting the sex-ed part of health today. How did I miss this post before? Sounds like we’ve been debating a phantom. The course, as described above by our eyewitness, seems utterly unobjectionable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373.md?page=6)