For clarity’s sake: I was agreeing with everything that Northern Piper said, except for the last qualifying sentence of “it would depend on how it’s actually taught in class.” How it’s actually taught would be irrelevant if the curriculum is that clearly biased.
I completely agree with this. It seems to be a theme of late that teaching facts which are in disagreement with someone’s ideology is itself an ideology. One can teach kids the best known ways to prevent pregnancy and disease without getting into the morality of having or not having sex, just like one can teach political science, government and economics without getting into which political party is right.
Besides, has anyone ever had a sex ed class that promoted kids having sex in any way? I know mine sure as heck didn’t.
This argument is not relevant to the case before us, in which the sex-ed course requires opt-in:
As a general characteristic of sex-ed? No.
Alleged to occur in this particular program? Sure:
“Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression.”
“One’s sexual and emotional orientations are fixed at an early age … certainly by age five.”
“Human sexuality is a continuum.”
“Many homophobic responses are born out of a fear that one’s own sexual orientation may not be entirely heterosexual.”
“It is perfectly natural to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender.”
“[A]bstinence until marriage” is detrimental to “GLBT youth.”
Those statements all sound like objective fact to me. Care to explain your objections to them?
Because the coersion is interpreted as the state’s advocating one religion over another, or over the lack of religion. Sex education is agnostic. You can be a healthy member of society not knowing the proper and safe method of worshipping a deity; you can’t be a healthy member of society not knowing the proper and safe method of having sex.
I’d be very interested to hear you explain how these statements aren’t objective fact.
Well, several of those clearly are matters of objective fact:
“Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression.” can clearly not be denied other than through Clintonian quibbling over the definition of “often”.
“[A]bstinence until marriage” is detrimental to “GLBT youth.” Well, duh; given the fact that gay marriage is legally impossible, it’s equivalent to imposing the condition “abstinence until you become a citizen of the Confederate States of America”.
“The proper method of having sex includes abstaining until marriage.”
This is a religiously-based point, of course, but the state may not take a position on the truth or falsity of it, for precisely that reason.
I was thinking of the distinction between teaching about religion, in a religious studies class, and teaching a particular religion. If part of the curriculum is a brief survey of how different societies have viewed sexual activity in the past, you might be able to justify some reference to religious beliefs - if considered solely from a social studies perspective. But if the religious references are there to reassure kids that particular sexual activities are moral/not immoral, then I would think it’s crossed over into teaching a religious viewpoint as such.
I agree it’s a fine line but the distinction between teaching about religion, and teaching religion, inevitably brings up that line.
Duh yourself. To teach that it’s morally permissible to have sex with a partner of the same sex is to take a position that is cointradicted by religious teaching. The religious folks would argue that this practice imperils the immortal soul of the participants; can the state reply that this is simply not true?
That’s not a method of having sex, that’s a cultural attitude about sex. We’re talking about teaching biology here, not anthropology.
So…if I start a religion that claims the moon is made of cheese, is the state forbidden from taking a position on the truth or falsity of that point? Should I petition my school board to stop teaching children that the moon is made of rock?
Not to mention the fact that you’re confusing two usages of the word “proper”: moral and hygenic. A sex-education class that teaches students how to have safe sex is not taking a moral position on whether or not they should have sex. Teaching safe sex does not in itself advocate a moral or religious position, so comparing it to school prayer just doesn’t make sense. (Certainly not when, as Steve MB has pointed out, the class requires not an opt-out but an opt-in.)
No, you raise a good point. But the two propositions are different: we can show, rigorously, that the moon is made of grey rock. We cannot show rigorously that your immortal soul is jeopardized by extra-marital sex.
Agreed. But what, then, is the point of teaching that many religious denominations do not believe that loving people of the same sex is immoral or sinful, and that Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality, and that religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression? Taken together, those three statements certainly invite the listener to infer some religious conclusions.
You’re changing the question. The question is, is it an objective fact or not that abstinence until marriage is detrimental to GLBT youth?
And for gay and lesbian youth, it definitely is detrimental in a society where such youth can never get married. Lifelong abstinence for such people means denying themselves physical and emotional intimacy that the rest of take for granted. And no one can deny that biologically and emotionally, human beings crave that intimacy. Denying that intimacy is objectively detrimental to the the emotional health of the person involved.
“Is it morally permissable to have sex with a partner of the same sex?” is a different question, and one that is indeed likely outside the scope of the classroom. But that doesn’t change the objective truth of “abstinence until marriage is detrimental to gay and lesbian youth”.
To put it another way…being arrested for distributing Christian literature in China is detrimental to those who are arrested. That is an objective fact, regardless of what you may think of the morality of distributing Christian literature in China.
OK, you’re right.
If you assume the truth that such conduct imperils the immortal soul, then denying that intimacy is safer than accepting it. But I acknowledge that the truth of the soul is not an objective one.
So, yes, I’ll concede that abstinence until marriage being detrimental to gay and lesbian youth is objectively defensible.
What does it matter if one can show rigorously that the moon is made of grey rock if the people who believe it to be made of cheese refuse to believe any of the scientific arguments you put forth, but instead field studies by a few people claiming to be scientists which purport to cast doubt on current knowledge of the moon’s composition? People with a religious agenda don’t believe scientists.
Agreed. So it’s probably a bad idea for public schools to teach that your immortal soul is jeopardized by extra-marital sex.
Of course, the sex-ed programs being objected aren’t teaching that, are they? And I bet they aren’t teaching that your immortal soul isn’t jeopardized by extra-marital sex, either. To repeat my earlier point: they’re not advocating a moral position.
We’re supposed to restrict what we teach children based on what they might infer, now? Shall we no longer teach students that the earth orbits around the sun, in case the students happen to infer that the Great God Apollo doesn’t ride his fiery chariot across the sky once a day?
Let the students infer whatever they want, as long as they have the facts to do so.
And to answer your question: the point is to provide students an environment in which they can reach a halfway rational conclusion about their own sexuality. Here’s the thing: there are gay students out there. They live in a culture in which a startling percentage of the population believe that gay people are an abomination. And they have the hideously onerous task of coming to terms with their own sexuality and deciding how they want to live their life. Now as I see it we have two choices. We can let them continue to stumble along blindly and force them to reach a decision based on the hearsay, half-truths, and prejudices that they’ve probably been exposed to up to this point, not to mention the abject terror they may be feeling about their own bodies.
Or we can present them with as many facts as possible and help them reach a decision that is based on something more than ignorance and fear.
Some of those students will decide to adhere to Christian morals, and will abstain from sex with same-sex partners. Some won’t. But the point is to enable them to make that decision for themselves.
Rick, you are aware that this is a sex education course, right?
Can I propose my new curriculum for a driver’s ed class? “Driving is dangerous. The only way to be safe is not to drive at all. End of class, put your heads down on your desk until the bell rings.”
Get rid of the bullshit about when it’s “right” or “wrong” to have sex, or with whom. Leave that to the parents. But if you’re going to be teaching kids about sex and reproduction, in an opt-in course, teach them about responsibility and safety.
Again:
Teaching that many religious denominations do not believe that loving people of the same sex is immoral or sinful, and that Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality, and that religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression… taken together, those three statements certainly invite the listener to infer some religious conclusions.
It is this that I’m now objecting to.
You’re going to have to help me because I can’t figure out what religious conclusions you’re inferring. All of those things are objective facts. I find it rather disturbing that anyone would object to their children being taught objective facts because of the “conclusions” they may draw."
Would you have a problem with teaching children about the Holocaust because children of Christian Identity members might start to think antisemitism is bad?