|
Gay Family Oriented Book Controversy (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Thats irrelevant. Evolution is apart of history & science but if parents want to opt their children out of its teachings they should be allowed to. This isn't about sexual orientation, this is about the parents having final say over the state on how their children are raised.
I'd like to think if I was a parent I wouldn't have the school tell me I had no say in what material my child is exposed to. |
There are some things that children need to be taught though, regardless of what the parents may think. You mentioned that parents had the right to take children out of sex education classes in your school system - if this is common in the US, then I am not surprised that you guys have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the world. Children need to be taught about sex frankly and honestly to be able to function properly in the real world - I'm not sure there's anyway around this. And I mean seriously - have you ever heard of any child being emotionally damaged, at any age, by learning where babies really come from? Given this, can you think of any legitimate reason why parents should be able to withdraw their children from sex education classes?
As for this homosexuality thing:
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
What a idiotic statement. At 5 years old a child is not emotionally capable of understanding homosexuality, let alone hetrosexuality. I have a little niece and nephew and can tell you that a child, at that age, can not grasp what is between their legs - forget sex. |
What does sex have to do with it? Like skot_e said, the book appears to be about a family with homosexual parents, not an explicit look at the (ahem) ins and outs of homosexual life. I fail to see how, in this context, presenting a story about a homosexual family is any more subversive than presenting a story about a heterosexual family: you don't need to discuss sex to present the latter, so why are conservative demagogues trying to frame the presentation of the former as though it does necessarily require a discussion about sex?
Besides, even if we were talking about sex here, would you mind telling me how having a honest discussion about sex (including homosexual sex) with a five year old is likely to be detrimental to that child's development? If they are able to grasp it, then you've saved yourself another conversation a few years down the line. If they don't grasp it, then what has been lost? I guess what I'm really asking is, can you give me any good reason why sexuality should not be discussed with children as young as your neice and nephew? |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
What does sex have to do with it? |
If you read who i was quoting in my original post u would of seen what it had to do with it...tanceaholic was tlaking about sexual intercourse...go read and u will see.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Besides, even if we were talking about sex here, would you mind telling me how having a honest discussion about sex (including homosexual sex) with a five year old is likely to be detrimental to that child's development? If they are able to grasp it, then you've saved yourself another conversation a few years down the line. If they don't grasp it, then what has been lost? I guess what I'm really asking is, can you give me any good reason why sexuality should not be discussed with children as young as your neice and nephew? |
I never said it was "detrimental"...i clearly said thqat a 5 year old is not emotionally capable of understanding homosexual sex, let alone hetrosexual...boy Renegade not like you twist words.
However teaching a child at the age of 5 about sex makes no sense. They barely understand why they have a penis and why girls have a vagina...is it really important to explain to them what the organs are used for besides using the bathroom? What will it serve?
Would u cause them harm? No i do not think so...but they would not comprehend it very well and there is a chance that it could lead to younger kids having sex. Kids wants to do what adults do and exposing them at too young of an age (primarily younger then 10, serves no purpose what so ever. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
I never said it was \"detrimental\"...i clearly said thqat a 5 year old is not emotionally capable of understanding homosexual sex, let alone hetrosexual...boy Renegade not like you twist words.
However teaching a child at the age of 5 about sex makes no sense. They barely understand why they have a penis and why girls have a vagina...is it really important to explain to them what the organs are used for besides using the bathroom? What will it serve?
Would u cause them harm? No i do not think so...but they would not comprehend it very well and there is a chance that it could lead to younger kids having sex. Kids wants to do what adults do and exposing them at too young of an age (primarily younger then 10, serves no purpose what so ever. |
i dont think you should use your neice & nephew as examples to judge all other young children. i know i was more than capable of understanding basic reproductive concepts & sexuality when i was 5. christ, i was reading copies of 'every woman' when i was 6ish.
at the end of the day, its a fairy tale involving 2 princes instead of a prince and a princess- thats the ONLY reason for the outcry. keep the same storyline, swap the prince for a princess, and voila- no more problem (ie every other fairy tale ever written). it just highlights the US' conservative tendencies towards sex & sexuality (haha, and their love for litigation). if parents wish to opt out of public schooling then thats their choice, but they shouldnt have the right to sue the state for reading their children a fairy tale. its pathetic. |
|
|
| skot_e |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Children need to be taught about sex frankly and honestly to be able to function properly in the real world - I'm not sure there's anyway around this. |
Paradise church (where Guy Sebastian is from) gets their early teens to sign a 'contract with God' not to have pre marital sex. That could work - if there were a god. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i dont think you should use your neice & nephew as examples to judge all other young children. |
This coming from a guy who uses movies as examples of American citizens:rolleyes: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
This coming from a guy who uses movies as examples of American citizens:rolleyes: |
for the last time, thats not what i was doing. i was using the *concepts* raised. concepts are lovely abstract things that can be useful regardless of where they were conceived ;) |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
I never said it was "detrimental"...i clearly said thqat a 5 year old is not emotionally capable of understanding homosexual sex, let alone hetrosexual...boy Renegade not like you twist words. |
In that case, if you do not believe that there is any psychological or ehtical issue with teaching young children about the nature of sex, then what exactly are you arguing against? You say that young children are incapable of "understanding" sex at that age, even after it's been taught to them, but I would ask you what you're basing that on? Is there anything particularly complicated about the premise that a penis goes into a vagina to make a baby?
Just out of curiosity, if your neice or nephew were to ask you where babies come from, what would you tell them?
| quote: | | They barely understand why they have a penis and why girls have a vagina...is it really important to explain to them what the organs are used for besides using the bathroom? |
Um, it's precisely because "they barely understand why they have a penis and why girls have a vagina" that it is "really important to explain to them what the organs are used for besides using the bathroom". That's a bit like arguing, "why teach children how to read when they don't even know what letters are"?
| quote: | | What will it serve? |
The same as teaching children anything else about the world they live in. They need to learn these things eventually, so what is the value in delaying teaching them what they really do need to know?
| quote: | | Would u cause them harm? No i do not think so...but they would not comprehend it very well and there is a chance that it could lead to younger kids having sex. Kids wants to do what adults do and exposing them at too young of an age (primarily younger then 10, serves no purpose what so ever. |
That's pretty specious reasoning. I've known about sex for as long as I can remember (my younger sister was born when I was three and I'm pretty sure I understood what was happenning even then) and I was never inclined to have sex until I hit puberty - no child is. Pre-pubescent children are yet to develop libidos, so I really don't think that 5 year olds having sex with each other is really something we should be too concerned about. In fact, that's precisely the reason why we do need to teach children about sex (including homosexual sex) long before they start reaching puberty, which can actually occur at or before the age of ten that you mentioned. If they don't understand sex by the time they start to develop a sexual inclination, then they won't know how to have it responsibly and I shouldn't need to tell you why this wouldn't be a good thing. |
|
|
| priveye03 |
| Of course if a homosexual couple raised the same arguement about the depiction of a heterosexual couple portrayed in the book, then they would most likely be dismissed and ridiculed :rolleyes: |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
In that case, if you do not believe that there is any psychological or ehtical issue with teaching young children about the nature of sex, then what exactly are you arguing against? You say that young children are incapable of "understanding" sex at that age, even after it's been taught to them, but I would ask you what you're basing that on? |
I just dont see a reason for it...they are children and some things should be saved for later on in life to learn about. I do not feel it is appropriate for a child, of that age, to learn about sex...just my beleif.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Is there anything particularly complicated about the premise that a penis goes into a vagina to make a baby? |
No.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Just out of curiosity, if your neice or nephew were to ask you where babies come from, what would you tell them? |
I would tell them to ask their mother. But if they were my children i would, at that age, tell them that babies are made from a man and a woman who love one another very dearly. And if they then asked "but how" i would tell them they will learn a little later on in life.
We dont teach children at 5 years old about retirement plans because there is no reason to. Could they grasp the idea...i am sure they could...but whats the point? Some things can be saved.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Um, it's precisely because "they barely understand why they have a penis and why girls have a vagina" that it is "really important to explain to them what the organs are used for besides using the bathroom". That's a bit like arguing,"why teach children how to read when they don't even know what letters are"? |
I see your point...but i stand firmly on it should be saved...what will it benefit by telling them? No offence but your arguement reminds of an ACLU proponent.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The same as teaching children anything else about the world they live in. They need to learn these things eventually, so what is the value in delaying teaching them what they really do need to know?"? |
If thats the case why not teach them finite math, how to balance a check book and proper techniques of materbating...i mean eventually they will learn those things right?
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
That's pretty specious reasoning. I've known about sex for as long as I can remember (my younger sister was born when I was three and I'm pretty sure I understood what was happenning even then) and I was never inclined to have sex until I hit puberty - no child is. |
Very anecdotal of you. Just because YOU didnt means nothing. Thats liek saying you saw someone smoke a cig when you were 10 and never started so no kid will who sees the same thing. Kids like to mirror adult actions. Maybe not all but surely some will. More and more kids are having sex at a younger age...i remember when i was in high school kids lost it at about 16-18 years old (this is going back 13 or so years) - now today i hear from people kids are losing their virginity , on the average, about 11-13 years old.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Pre-pubescent children are yet to develop libidos, so I really don't think that 5 year olds having sex with each other is really something we should be too concerned about. |
I didnt mean the minute they heard about it. I meant around 10-12. But that doesnt meant they wont explore each other by touching.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
In fact, that's precisely the reason why we do need to teach children about sex (including homosexual sex) long before they start reaching puberty, which can actually occur at or before the age of ten that you mentioned. If they don't understand sex by the time they start to develop a sexual inclination, then they won't know how to have it responsibly and I shouldn't need to tell you why this wouldn't be a good thing. |
I agree...and i feel 10 years old would be an appropriate age to teach them. But certaintly not at 5. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Perhaps if David and Tony spent less time inventing new rights for themselves and more time actually raising their child, then they wouldn't have to worry about such trivialities.
Such a pity... |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
Kids like to mirror adult actions. Maybe not all but surely some will. More and more kids are having sex at a younger age...i remember when i was in high school kids lost it at about 16-18 years old (this is going back 13 or so years) - now today i hear from people kids are losing their virginity , on the average, about 11-13 years old. |
While this whole thread was supposed to be about teaching children about the SOCIAL aspects taught in the book (as i'm sure the kid's book doesn't have depictions of sex acts), this comment struck a chord. If children are having sex at 11-13, then one, ages when kids hit puberty has lowered, and two, it's even more important that kid's know about sex at a younger age.
If they're having sexual impulses at such young ages, sex ed isn't occurring fast enough in the US school system. I think I had sex ed in 6th grade. I was only 11 then, because I was one of the youngest in my class, but most of my classmates were 12. With your numbers, that means that in today's world, most of these kids have had sex before they have any education about it. While 99% of us weren't "doing it" then, I do remember that friends and classmates were always making sex comments before any of us really knew the details. Unfortunately, when it's a topic that children talk with each other about, because they learned about it from word on the street, older siblings, parents, etc., real facts should be taught to them. I mean, do you really want schoolchildren to get their info from each other about sex when probably less than 1% have had "the talk" with their parents, because the parents either don't know it's time to have it yet or are too embarassed to talk about it with their kids. The latter one is a real problem in America, because there's enough of a stigma revolving around sex that parents just don't want to talk about it. There was more than 1 friend that I had to set straight because of incorrect and potentially damaging things that they'd heard on the street and their parents never corrected, and this was after we were physically able to be sexually active. You know, rumors like the girl can't get pregnant her first time and you can't get STDs from oral sex. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Perhaps if David and Tony spent less time inventing new rights for themselves and more time actually raising their child, then they wouldn't have to worry about such trivialities.
Such a pity... |
This is one of my main points in bringing this issue up. Parents in the US are LAZY when it comes to raising their children. They don't teach their children about societal issues, especially if they're uncomfortable topics. Additionally, they don't want others to teach them, because the other person (teacher, etc.) may not have the same morals or values. Also, when someone else brings up the topic, then the parents are forced to deal with it then, when their son/daughter answers the question, "So how was your day at school?" One of the main roles of being a parent is to put things in context for your child. If something that your child learns in school is counter to your views, but a part of society, that's when it's time for parents to sit their kid down and explain as simply and least hatefully as possible why they disagree with lifestyles. They say, "While some people believe it's OK for a child to have two daddys, we believe that all children should have a mommy and a daddy. Not everyone agrees with us, though, so that's why you are learning that one day, you may have a friend with two daddys and no mommy."
From my own personal experience, my dad is fine when it comes to discussing these issues, but my mother seriously tells me time and time again that my intelligence will be my downfall. She's a much bigger believer in the "Ignorance is bliss" philosophy and feels that REAL knowledge is more hazardous than being in the dark. This is what's wrong with a LOT of American parents, as they teach their children as little as possible and don't understand the concept of seeing all the information and making your decision. They believe in forcing their own beliefs, rather than teaching kids to make their own decisions. |
|
|
|
|
