Sex Ed. In The US

[vslayer]

parents should have no say in weather there kid gets taught sex ed any more than they should have a say in wether they are taught english. If thats the way that sex was delt with we might not have such a problem with aids and other STD's as well as teenage pregnancys. The schools should look at it that this is as important or MORE so than basic reading and writing. Hell you can probaby go through life illeterate but i doubt many people die in there old age without ever having some form of sexual experiance

they dont have a say, the government lists it in the curriculum for health education, therefore it gets taught no matter what the parents say, although most schools will notify parents that they are teaching it as a courtesy

 

[Asguard]

vslayer: thats the way it happerns HERE and from your coments (and common sence) im asuming the same of NZ but that doesnt seem to be the way the US works. Parents bitch and important things get removed. Can you see that EVER happerning in NZ or australia? MAYBE in queensland but nowhere else

 

[Athelwulf]

Same-sex attraction is a mental illness, similar to sexual addiction, I believe. Somehow or other the natural attraction to the other sex is repressed, and engaging in homosexual acts might reinforce this tendancy. As for rehabilation, I do think it's possible, but it's like quiting a drug if not more difficult.

And you're an adult?

I have some advice for you:

<Big>Learn a thing or two about life!</Big>

I'm sorry, but I just cannot take such ignorance from you. You are just wrong. You have no idea how wrong you are, you're so wrong.

Homosexual acts might do more damage to the person physically [than premarital sex], but that remains to be seen.

Well . . . At least ya used "might". Though it's also very wrong, it's a little more forgivable.

I don't think the homosexual lifestyle is as fulfilling.

How do you know? It could be more fulfilling than a heterosexual lifestyle. After all, two men or two women are more like each other than a man and a woman could ever be.

Think about it. If a man hooks up with another man, he doesn't hafta deal with a complicated, overemotional woman who turns bitchy about every twenty-eight days. If a woman hooks up with another woman, she doesn't hafta deal with an &uuml;ber-horny, overagressive man who doesn't talk during sex and may have certain . . . shortcomings.

What I'm telling you is that just because an individual may prevent an STD, the commulative affect on society might not be good. For instance, an aggressive compaign for birth control might increase the rate of extra-marital sex, which might lead to more non-monogamous relationships. Because the introduction of condoms have led to more premarital sex, teenagers face more social acceptance and peer pressure.

Do ya have any idea how much of a stretch that is?!

 

[Tiassa]

Having seen the episode in question, I can't figure out what the hell the problem was.

Had this episode run as scheduled and without comment, I wouldn't even have noticed the lesbians.

Thanks to Margaret Spellings for taking this dispute outside the confines of gay-rights advocates and PBS. It was a good chance to put my daughter in front of the television for a specific reason.

 

[Mystech]

Did the lesbians kiss and tell children that sapphist love was the only way for a woman to truly be satisfied? Or was it "Oh by the way here is a same-sex couple, and they don't want to eat buster even though he's a vulnerable young child"?

Also, Tiassa, would you be interested in devising some sort of scale on which you might rate how damagingly gay this program was, vs Sponge Bob Square Pants, and the Telletubbies?

 

[Tiassa]

Buster went to Vermont with his father. Along the way, he learned about the people they were going to see. The first cue was the phrase, "She lives there with her partner, Gillian."

Then the camera strolls up to the door, and we meet a woman who is supposedly an old friend of Buster's mom. She shows them in and introduces them around. While Buster is looking at family pictures with the daughter, Emma, he asks about a picture of the two moms. "Isn't that a lot of moms?"

The story then moves downstairs where the brothers are boxing with a heavy bag. They take a moment to explain that one is a step-brother while the other two are directly related.

That's pretty much it.

As to devising a scale? I'm not sure how to mark the units.

If showing a child rape-pornography, for instance, constitutes a 100% harm factor, I'd estimate the following:

Bush speech: 50%
Dazed and Confused: 45%
Sitcoms: 40%
Card-game cartoons: 33%
War/combat cartoons: 30%
Sponge Bob Square Pants: 20%
Teletubbies: 0-10%
Postcards From Buster, "Sugartime": 0-1%​

Then again, children with two moms is what touched off the gay fray in Oregon over a decade ago. Some things never change.

I think the politically-sensitive fear would be that children would form an abstract bond with a television character, such as the children of this Vermont family. As such, when the question comes to the viewing children later in life, they will possibly have greater sympathies to the children of gay families: Don't hurt Emma's parents because it hurts her.

And God only knows, a compassionate child is a threat to national security. At least, in "middle America".

Seriously, if Spellings hadn't opened her trap, I might not have noticed this episode at all. Then again, this sort of controversy is the price we pay when PBS changes from "Community-Cooperative Ready to Learn Grants" to "Ready to Learn/No Child Left Behind Grants". It seems our Education Secretary would like to leave children of gay families behind.