Though Howard Friedman's post on opposition to sexual education in Montgomery County, Maryland, is rather vague (not helped by the article he links, which is even more difficult to decipher), he spurs an intriguing thought.
In short, his blurb covers a conservative group concerned that religious people who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds are being discriminated against by a new curriculum that teaches about said sexual preference.
I don't understand what these people expect. Even if homosexuality is morally wrong and an eternally damnable offense, that doesn't change the fact that people need to understand it in terms of sexual health, which is what should be taught in public schools. This is another case of ignoring an issue because people don't want to talk about it, and before you know it, people are spreading sexually transmitted diseases because they're uneducated about safe sex.
For example — and I know, it's a movie, but I think the concept is realistic — take the instance in the film "Saved," where our young female protagonist has sex with her gay boyfriend in order to save him from Hell, having absolutely no idea what it means to be gay, or what it means to have sex. In effect, she gets pregnant because she hasn't been educated about contraceptives, and her boyfriend still goes off to be "cured."
This raises a question about public school curriculum: I think it would be ridiculous for those in touch with the reality of the world to continue being uneducated about the realities of sexuality in modern America, but at the same time, I respect these people's right to remain ignorant. I know everyone can't afford private school, where these things are regulated, but with their appropriate religious rights is it fair to fail them? I think Sex Ed should be part of a mandatory curriculum, and I hate to just say "get over it," but where should the line be drawn?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Religious Discrimination in Sex Ed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It's not discrimination to force kids into sex ed where the implications could spell catastrophe for public health. Herpes, which is incurable, doesn't really care if you're Mormon or Methodist. Neither does HIV, hepatitis, genital warts, HPV, and any other strain of incurable sexually transmitted infection that I have failed to mention above.
By submitting to the whims of religious groups that believe that some forms of activity are sinful and others are not---when many of those activities are common, are referenced often in media and art, and occur every minute of every day---the floodgates are officially open. What if I believe that STIs only befall evil people? Should my kids not be exposed (ha ha) to STI education, even though 80% of sexually active persons have some form of HPV? What if I believe that rapes only happen to whores? Should I not tell my teenage daughter that one if four college women is raped/experiences some form of sexual assault and that most of these assaults will be by men that the victim knows? That's like letting kids out into the world with blindfolds on.
Public schools should educate kids generally about sexuality and sexual health, if nothing else because unprotected sexual activity of any kind (be it between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, etc.) is potentially health- and life-threatening. Period.
It's not like educating kids on sex or sexuality has to have a particular slant. Sexual education curricula does not dictate that a kid must be told that homosexuality is a choice or genetically predetermined or a sin or a blessing or nothing at all. All a kid needs to know is that there are gay people, straight people, and those of us who have yet to decide, and no matter where a kid's particular preference lies, sex is healthy, natural, but generally requires some form of protection.
And to mount the soapbox yet again, isn't letting your kid go through life without understanding common forms of sexual activity* and the potential positive or negative consequences a bit like not telling your kid what to do when s/he gets a cold? Or not telling your kid how to eat balanced meals? Everyone eats, and everyone gets sick sometimes. But not telling your kids how to take care of themselves or how to understand how others take care of themselves is practically criminal. Just because you don't approve of some forms of activity between consenting adults doesn't mean that you shouldn't at least understand what that activity is and how it may/may not harm them. I don't believe in the right to bear arms, but I'll at least tell my kids that guns exist and can kill you, if you don't know what you're doing.
[*"Common" here as in plain, vanilla sexual (oral, anal, and vaginal) intercourse between two partners. Dendrophilia need not be covered, but kids should know at least enough get the bases down.]
Preach on. . . but I'd love to hear the other side to this argument, though.
Any takers?
Post a Comment