You are seconding my point. All these hot reactions
ignore the fact that teachers need guidelines Those are usually thrashed out by local schoolboards. Parents weigh in.

Obama’s suggestion did not include lesson plans or specific guidelines for each grade level, yet everyone is already up in arms.

While many parents are part of the solution for schools, they are also part of the problem. Each parent wants the school to be a carbon copy of themselves as guides to children. What the children lose in the process is exposure to diversity.

Going through the public school system, my peers and I had absolutely no trouble dealing with the differences between school and home and among ourselves. We were enriched by differences Jusst like city kids being more street wise, we were diversity wise. Those of us who had most trouble dealing with exposure to divergent life sytyles later, beginning with teen years, by and large came from the most restrictive homes, where children were kept in their parents’ bubble. Children can understand very early that although a lot of people believe X, my parents believe Y. They are more likely to be thrown by an introduction to X (either to be seduced or feel threatened by it), if it comes later, without the immunity of familiarity. .

Exposure to diversity also teaches children about
how society functions. about majorities and minorities and the need to co-operate.
—-

As to: “The points of contention have to do with the separation of sexuality from sexual reproduction; ”
===
That’s a religious view held by some. Those who can’t tolerate any other understanding of sexuality, would do better to keep their children in the bubble of a religious school.

Zero, zilch, none, nada. The idea could prove to be the end of Obama’s campaign – how can I vote for someone who would come out in favor of something so ridiculous?

“Age-appropriate’ doesn’t mean that kindergardeners will learn about birth control. Anyway, local governemtns and school boards will be chiming in, as well as parents.

Ii’m wondering though, if the school is not allowed to deal with the subject, and a 5 year old asks if the stork brings babies, what should the teacher’s answer be? Should she lie and agree? Should she call the parents to ask what they want her to say?

My wife and I are very open about these issues with our kids and are way ahead on the learning curve in these matters. But the important thing is that we are the ones relaying the information. This is yet another reason why my kids will never see the inside of a public school.

Stickings said :

Given that our children are being inundated with sexual images, that they are learning about sex, and not always good things about sex, at ever younger ages, that they are having sex at ever younger ages, or at least having irresponsible sex at disturbingly young ages, that HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy remain serious problems, that, in generally, our children are being sexualized at early ages,

Notice the talk of “OUR” children? I don’t need nor will I allow other adults to present these issues to my children. It doesn’t take a village as Hillary and her ilk would say We are having no problem handling the subject matter. I prefer my kids to use the time in school to concentrate on other things. Now if some parents feel that they are incapable of talking to their kids about sex and would like some sort of workshop offered to relieve them on this difficulty I would have no problem with that.

SO sex education will not be taught to my kids outside of my home. Yet they will learn far more than most kids at a much earlier age.

It’s a badly written headline, but still better than the NYT headline “Romney Criticized for Hotel Pornography”.

Agreed, that one was so missleading as to be utterly laughable (or disgusting).

As to the subject of the post, I think I agree with Obama. His view is divided in two parts. On the one hand he supports age appropriate sex-education at all levels. The OTHER point he makes, one more associated with a conservative viewpoint, is that though he supports it, sex education must something that local school boards decide on themselves. I don’t think it’s good or even just practical that there be a federal program for this. At the most there could be recommendations on the subject, but the actual decision must be left up to the local communities.

Also “opt-out” or “opt-in” is a constant battlefield. Either way of doing it is bound to cause divisions and controversy, so I think this ALSO needs to be decided at the local level.

Beyond my earlier parental rights discussion, you actually undermined your own case in you last post. But why should it not be taught in the schools alongside other aspects of biology? Last I checked, biology is not part of the normal Kindergarten curriculum anywhere. That subject is taught later.

I think, if it fits within the overall life structure of a child, that exposing them to the concepts of love, where babies come from, and what those parts of their body and the opposite sex are (especially if they have siblings of the opposite sex near in age).

But, I can appreciate not everyone shares those views. And if a child is being raised within a different structure, I don’t believe exposing them to concepts against their parents will and rights is healthy.

Just because I raised my children the way I did, and they turned out to be fine, healthy young adults with good, positive attitudes towards sex (at least in my opinion), doesn’t make my way the only right way, or the right way for others.

I still say sex education for prior to the middle school age should remain a parent’s prerogative, not the state’s.

So many on this board, and especially you Michael (and rightly so, in many of the instances) have complained vehemently about government intrusion into our private lives and space in the name of anti-terrorism.

But this is OK with you?

I post here right-of-center, and overall I am, but my views on drugs, religion, abortion, sex, personal freedom, and others make Conservatives uncomfortable around me.

But I can argue just as strongly against their myopic views on those subjects as I can against the anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war sentiments that dominate this board.

I live in Austin because of all the reasons listed above. Has it changed? Of course it has; if it doesn’t grow, it would die. Is it still quirky and liberal? You bet.

Maybe it isn’t the 60’s or 70’s here anymore, but I can still smoke a joint in the open at ACL, or at Stubb’s, and not worry about getting busted. It is one of the best places left in the US for just walking around and hearing all kinds of live music, the over-the-top ‘Live Music Capitol’ moniker not withstanding.

One other nice thing about Austin is that not too many people like DLS live here.

Well, there is the minor issue of Austin having the largest college student population in the country

I look more at government and natural amenities when it comes to older people who would move there, or what would lead students not to leave.

You are, of course, correct insofar as a large student population also makes things liberal (same goes for Boulder and for that matter, Raleigh-Durham, two places I mentioned earlier — and of course the Five Colleges area in western Massachusetts makes life there sometimes liberal by liberal Massachusetts standards). Schools bring to down lots of naive, liberal kids. (They normally outgrow their more silly activist liberalism once they become real adults. An interesting minority will continue to be liberal, and another interesting minority will become more liberal with age.)

The RR are obsessed with keeping minds closed and dogmatically enslaved.

Far less in scope as well as in viciousness toward “heretics” compared to the pee-cee crowd.

[dusting hands]

Denying that won’t make it go away.

There is nothing extreme here, though of course I appreciate being called a “nut job” for suggesting that sex and sexuality not be suppressed, that our young people grow up to be sexually healthy and responsible adults.

making him out to be some sort of pervert

People don’t do this, least of all the media, who are liberal, who love Obama and give his minority status a halo and PC “off-limits to criticism” special treatment. (We’ll see how they remain that way if he endangers Hillary’s prospects later and the media are still hoping for Hillary as the Dems’ best chance.)

People would feel weird toward anybody who would promote sex education down to age five, or at anyone who suggested government behave in school or elsewhere as a substitute for parents in any other way.

Obama is simply a fresh new face (with some “realistic” stances a la Hillary so as not to repel as many people) on typical lefty gummint and activist nonsense.

Do the teachers’ unions expect more money if the activists seeking ridiculous sex education down to age five were successful?

Well, there is the minor issue of Austin having the largest college student population in the country.

Trust me, the dirty hippies are a slim minority in Austin these days. And all the “Keep Austin Weird” t-shirts and bumper stickers on the planet will probably never change that. Much to the dismay of Red Wassenich.

I still love the town, in many ways more than when I lived there around 20 years ago. But it’s definately a different city now.

AustinRoth,
Admit it, even conservatives and moderates enjoy the Continental Club right?

;0)

Austin is a blue oasis in Texas, so liberals would like to go there;

Austin is home of the state government, so there is constant economic activity (Texans’ tax dollars at work);

Austin is the one place for miles around with trees;

Austin is home to some high-tech industry (a mere fingernail or toenail compared to Silicon Valley, but a high-industry nevertheless) and accompanying economic activity;

Austin is nice enough to attract liberals (and liberals will say that it’s the reverse, that liberals make places nice, and attractive to others, including non-liberals). It’s not due just to being a government seat nor to being the only place around with trees; it’s similar to Boulder or maybe to Raleigh-Durham or other blue liberal oases in parched Red-Land.