I was extrapolating from your claim that a child has the right to a dad and mom, and that the importance is partly due to it being the natural state. I took your intent to mean that a married man and woman therefore are better parents than, for example, two unwed mothers. Perhaps I misunderstood your point; if so, what were you suggesting? I disagree with your definition of a parent. Perhaps it's a semantic issue, but I tend to think that any person who takes an active role in raising a child is a parent, whether or not she actually pushed the child of her vagina. I don't think anyone suggested that it was up to the state to teach sex education. In fact, this entire discussion is in the context of the role of the parent. I'm curious what you think is an appropriate age to begin teaching a child such foundations of sex education. This is pretty way off topic, but I thought it was worth a reply anyway. I think it's interesting that you're talking about a lack of debate in the scientific community, when the usual rebuttal against anthropogenic effects on climate change is that the scientific community is fiercely divided over the issue. When it comes to the human contributions to climate change, the science community has been pretty well in agreement since at least the 1970s. Scientists have a fairly decent grasp on climate science; it's the media that is terribly misinformed (on both sides).
It's a matter of fact that you become a parent the day you bring a child into this existence, the definition isn't mine. If you view parents as incapable of providing their children the information and therefore want the state to step in to fill the parents role then yes, such a suggestion was made. From the states point of view this appears to the case, else there would be no sex education for four year olds to begin with. Kind of makes sense doesn't it. When the child brings it up asking questions would be a good time, this will not happen at a set date or age. In any case, it's not up to the state to sex "educate" our four year olds. That's for the parents to do. Period.
Let's first establish what you think sex education for four-year olds looks like. What do you understand them being taught? The "let's wait until they ask" strategy doesn't work, by the way. Sometimes children don't know what to ask, or how. Certainly I'd think it makes sense to tell a girl about periods before she freaks out about blood coming from her vagina. There are other aspects of physical boundaries, intimacy and sexuality that they need to be prepared for. Waiting until they ask is essentially the parent putting responsibility on the child to broach this sensitive subject. It's a parental cop-out.
Wait until they ask works perfectly fine, I speak from experience. Having said that though, you have to use your judgment and be observant. If they don't ask you can always pick a time to bring it up, again, use your judgment. Perhaps you had to do that with your child(ren)? Bring it up because they did not ask. As for Parental cop-out? Nope, not at all. It is more a question of parental concerns.
So basically you are saying: sometimes you do have to bring it up first. Make no mistake: your child will still learn about sex one way or another. If not from you, them from other children, television, popular songs, magazines, and other sources. Much of this information will be inaccurate. At the same time, you will lose an important opportunity to discuss the values you associate with sex and sexuality. Research shows that like with all parenting, the earlier you begin the process, the better. Sex education for children does not focus on the act of sex, but rather includes the broader concept of sexuality and intimacy: the physical, emotional, and social aspects of being a boy or girl, man or woman in our culture, the roles and relationships that are part of being male or female, and the physical and emotional boundaries one can expect to be respected. Ideally, you have had continuing conversations about sexual issues since their earliest years. If you wait until they reach puberty or adolescence, it will feel much more difficult to talk about these issues, and arguably it is already too late. You need to become comfortable with these discussions as early as possible, so that you can lay a firm educational foundation and establish an openness and ease of talking about such matters before puberty. Else they won't ask and won't feel able to talk to you. Now, for the third time: what do you understand sex education for 4-year olds to consist of?
For the 2nd time. Meaning, I am not going to bring up the downsides or my understanding of what is being taught to four year olds. And I repeat this again, it is not up to the state to teach our four year olds, it is the responsibility of the parents. The state is not the parent. Yes they will, but it should not be taught in school at the age of four, the opportunity to discuss both sex and values should be mine, as the parent, and not that of the state.
Without you explaining your point of view, we cannot have a meaningful discussion about it. So I'll just chalk your position down as a subjective bias and move on. This is not about how things should be, but dealing with how things are. Your children will learn about sex from all sorts of external sources. The state is just one of them, and probably the least influential and worrisome. You need to get in there first. Or you can complacently wait until they ask, by which time you may find it is already too late. To parent is to anticipate.
Personal prejudice for wanting to have the opportunity to raise my child without the interference from the state? For wanting to have the opportunity to discuss sex and values with my child without the state imposing it onto my child when its four years old? For wanting to be the parent? OK, you do that Nexxo, you chalk that position down as personal prejudice. We’re done here.
Are you saying you can't even have your child excused from such lessons? The state is putting a gun to your head and making your kid sit through the horrifics of fundamental biology? If you think you can do a better job fine. But that doesn't mean that age appropriate sex education is wrong or a bad thing. I remember when this thread used to be about religion
No, subjective bias in your opinion that four-year olds should not have sex education (regardless of who gives it to them) because it sexualises them. If you will not rationally debate that position, I can't but help to draw the conclusion that it is based in subjective prejudice. It still is, just of a different kind.
Where have I stated that if a four year old asks about sex that I as a parent shouldn’t explain it to him or her? I have said that the state should not be in a position to subject our four year olds to sex education. We've been talking about what takes place in school, yes. Understand the difference. And the discussion is now over, if you feel you need to reply yet again, by all means do so, get it out of your system.
That is not what you said. You said that four-year olds should not have sex education because it sexualises them. Then you said you're not going to explain that view --in a debating forum. So I said: OK, so this is just a personal subjective bias, then. Then you lost your cool and ranted about state intervention and your right to be a parent.
Hey that wasn't what you initially said and what I reacted to, I can't help if my response doesn't quite fit your post after you have edited it.
Birthing a child means you've successfully procreated. Whether or not you actually become a parent to the child is an entirely different matter, and I argue that it has more to do with a person's actions after the child is born. That said, I think we may be approaching the word from different positions. That is incorrect. The point began when you constructed a straw man argument against scientists by suggesting that since 'they' believe sex education is healthy for four year old children, then any scientific research in the family dynamics of children with homosexual parents must therefore also be flawed. The thread then drifted into the subject of proper level of sex education at different ages, but it was squarely in the context of people being suitable parents, not whether the state should do it. And if the scientific community, separate from the state, performs research which shows the benefits of early sex education - beginning with basic foundations of body image, names of body parts, notions of privacy and boundaries, and then builds on that foundation over time - I see no reason why parents, in their own homes, shouldn't adopt such principles. You're not sexualizing them; you're informing them. If you do a half-decent job raising them (because you're a better parent than the state, after all) you shouldn't have to worry about your four year old going out and having sex with all his or her friends.
@supermonkey. If you are of the opinion that it is the parents that should handle it and not the state, which seems to be the case, then there's no disagreement. As for not sexualizing them when informing them all comes down to on how the children are informed, how it is presented to them, I would think. The parents should inform, not the state/school. Especially at such a young age, when they’re both vulnerable and lack intellectual self defense.
From my perspective, humanity does matter, but the destination of their eternal soul and spirit is more important. Nexxo, oh Nexxo, Paul the apostle said that not Jesus, call it being churlish, but I'm pointing out, you're arguing about me on the Bible and continue to show you're misinformed or don't actually know what is in the Bible itself. I don't know how you guys keep coming to these off base conclusions... This is the message I was referring to iirc. How is this meaningless to people in "real trouble" as you put it. It applies to everyone in trouble? In my understanding, this is how it applies to our modern lives: Good news to the poor - Financial Prosperity, Freedom to the prisoners - Freedom to people bound by such things as drug addictions etc, Recovery of Sight to the blind - Healing, Set the oppressed free - Mental healing, in another place I believe it says heal the broken hearted. Now which part of a human being's life is not covered by those? Well it shouldn't sit right with you because it's wrong. Please realise this is a forum and I'm answering specific questions, don't take one truth and make it THE truth that applies to every situation. Sometimes God tells people to go to doctors and get operations done too, take your pills etc. And you're wrong, read the Bible for yourself and not just have opinions on your presumptions and what others have said. Nope not what I said and you still haven't gone back and read what I was referring to. When I said, "once again signs confirming the word." I was pointing out that the preaching of the Gospel was accompanied with miracles - in reference to something Nexxo said about blind faith (which is a misnomer), I was not saying that the words in the book are evidence of miracles – as in presenting it in evidence to you guys as proof of miracles, the accuracy of the Bible was not in question, we were discussing what was in it. If you believe the Bible is true, the words would be to you, evidence of miracles, but it wasn’t the point. If you had no personal freedom, you would not be allowed to teach error. With that logic, no one in any civilised society has any freedom. And exactly where did you get this “I will punish them from" your image of God is skewed. Yes, that’s what I’ve been saying since I first addressed the subject.
You keep obsessing about the messenger and the miracles, and not paying attention to the message. Worry less about other people's spiritual destination, and more about your own.
If you worry about others, live a life that makes them want to know why you live the way you live. Let your charity, your willingness to work, and your love for those you don't even know be the reason they ask. If the only way they know Christians is by their T-shirts, then Christianity has failed.
I didn't want to play this game, however: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, study finds
