Helena, Montana Considers Sex-Ed for Kindergarteners

liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/13/helena-montana-considers-sex-ed-for-kindergarteners/?test=latestnews

The Montana Family Foundation says it is fighting the proposed changes, telling Fox News it's biggest concern is teaching graphic sexual detail to kids who are not emotionally able to process or comprehend it. If the changes pass, then kids as young as 5 years will begin to learn the medically accurate names for a number of both male and female "private parts".

By 10 years of age, under this liberal agenda, the children will not only have been educated on homosexual relationships, but the different ways two people of any gender can have sex.

For those "pro-life" liberals, this is you're agenda to lessen the number of abortions? I guess if we can push more and more children toward becoming homosexuals it might work.

Children do not need sex ed. They just need to know which parts of their bodies are private.

Around 3rd/4th grade, it's time to teach each gender about puberty and the changes their bodies will experience.

Actual sex ed isn't necessary until middle or high school. Little kids don't need to know that stuff, and I seriously question the motives of those who believe they do. Why, so they can be molested? They certainly aren't interested in sex until they hit puberty unless a) they've been molested or b) their parents are irresponsible and let their children watch immoral shows or shows rated above their age group. And those who have hit puberty need to learn to control themselves.

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:1, topic:205232"]
liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/13/helena-montana-considers-sex-ed-for-kindergarteners/?test=latestnews

By 10 years of age, under this liberal agenda, the children will not only have been educated on homosexual relationships, but the different ways two people of any gender can have sex.

For those "pro-life" liberals, this is you're agenda to lessen the number of abortions? I guess if we can push more and more children toward becoming homosexuals it might work.

[/quote]

Knowledge is a good thing; perhaps down the road it'll help to keep the abortion rate down; especially if the church makes a strong effort to encourage abstinence amongst its members.

Your stated desire to have more children pushed more and more to become homosexuals is a fallacy at best. I know of no school that would deliberately steer the children in that direction.

[quote="gamewell45, post:3, topic:205232"]

Knowledge is a good thing; perhaps down the road it'll help to keep the abortion rate down; especially if the church makes a strong effort to encourage abstinence amongst its members.

[/quote]

Perhaps we will see pregnant 10 year olds as well. Knowledge is a good thing, but if a monkey in the zoo is taught how to use a gun and he somehow comes across a loaded pistol he might not know that pulling that trigger at innocent bystanders is going to kill them.

Your stated desire to have more children pushed more and more to become homosexuals is a fallacy at best. I know of no school that would deliberately steer the children in that direction.

My stated desire?

The education curriculum would include how gays and lesbians have sex.

Did you read the link?

By the age of 10 a child would not only know the traditional forms of sex, but also the forms of sex one would only expect to see in pornography, the forms of sex that homosexuals tend to enjoy somehow.

My conclusion was that liberals want to teach children, small kids that are learning what 1+1 is, about detailed sexual information. They want to continue that education up until the age of 10 before the child even hits puberty. And "pro-life" liberals go along with this nonsense as part of thier justification to support liberal Democrats.

Do you have any kids in that age range?

[quote="stephe1987, post:2, topic:205232"]
Children do not need sex ed. They just need to know which parts of their bodies are private.

Around 3rd/4th grade, it's time to teach each gender about puberty and the changes their bodies will experience.

Actual sex ed isn't necessary until middle or high school. Little kids don't need to know that stuff, and I seriously question the motives of those who believe they do. Why, so they can be molested? They certainly aren't interested in sex until they hit puberty unless a) they've been molested or b) their parents are irresponsible and let their children watch immoral shows or shows rated above their age group. And those who have hit puberty need to learn to control themselves.

[/quote]

It is sad, indeed, that we cannot let children be children. The school is not the place for such "education". It should be done at home. No child should be required to attend such classes against the wishes of their parents. Parents raise children, not schools.

I would be beyond furious. NO WAY would I allow the government run school system to brain wash my child(ren) into the government's liberal sexual ideology. It would be OVER MY DEAD BODY.:mad::slapfight:

I heard more about this last night on the news......what they are proposing to teach children about sex is really way over the line......not to mention IT'S NOT THEIR JOB, NOR THEIR BUSINESS TO DO SO!!!!!

Sex ed used to be how babies come about, and about puberty.......

Now it seems to be a how to manual. Very sad...

This constitutes child abuse--child abuse by the educational system. How outrageous.

[quote="gamewell45, post:3, topic:205232"]
Knowledge is a good thing; perhaps down the road it'll help to keep the abortion rate down; especially if the church makes a strong effort to encourage abstinence amongst its members.

[/quote]

Knowledge is neither good nor bad. It is neutral. How the knowledge is applied is what makes it potentially good. Exposing children to sexual vocabulary and images before they are intellectually and emotionally ready to incorporate the knowledge could have the effect of hypersexualizing the childen or worse. Protecting the innocence of our children is one of the most important responsibilites we have as parents.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

Section VI is particularly important. Introducing too much sex during the period of approximately ages 5 - puberty is the most dangerous.

Another good article, with more research, is this one. While specifically addressing sex ed in Catholic schools, the research is still valid.

ewtn.com/library/HOMESCHL/SECATHSC.HTM

My children know the medically accurate names of the all their body parts, including their genitals. I don't have a problem with that. The big problems are, first of all, they're going to be teaching 1st graders about homosexuality, using phraes such as "some people like people of the same gender", and this is called being gay or homosexual. Like the guy on the debate on Fox said, ALL first graders prefer people of the same gender ("no girls allowed"; "boys have cooties", does that ring a bell for anybody?), so this is going to "plant a seed" at a VERY young age, that they might be gay (and of course, there's nothing wrong with that, and if your parents say there is they're bigots! :rolleyes:). Second, teaching kids about ALL forms of sex. Why do kids under age 10 need to know about heterosexual intercouse, much less oral and anal sex? It's absurd, just like Provincetown handing out condoms to children this same age. This will do nothing but encourage sexual behavior in children too young to handle it emotionally OR physically!

In Christ,

Ellen

[quote="Teelynn, post:6, topic:205232"]
I would be beyond furious. NO WAY would I allow the government run school system to brain wash my child(ren) into the government's liberal sexual ideology. It would be OVER MY DEAD BODY.:mad::slapfight:

I heard more about this last night on the news......what they are proposing to teach children about sex is really way over the line......not to mention IT'S NOT THEIR JOB, NOR THEIR BUSINESS TO DO SO!!!!!

[/quote]

Its unlikely that you alone will be able to effect a positive change to what you want unless you are able to get a groundswell of support from a majority of people who live in your school district; then you'll have to convince your school board that you are right and they are wrong. It'll be an uphill battle for you the entire way.

Obviously you feel very strongly about this. I can only suggest that you consider taking your child out of the public schools and putting them into private school. The one advantage to doing this is that you can in most cases customize the education your child will receive.

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:4, topic:205232"]
Perhaps we will see pregnant 10 year olds as well. Knowledge is a good thing, but if a monkey in the zoo is taught how to use a gun and he somehow comes across a loaded pistol he might not know that pulling that trigger at innocent bystanders is going to kill them.

My stated desire?

The education curriculum would include how gays and lesbians have sex.

Did you read the link?

By the age of 10 a child would not only know the traditional forms of sex, but also the forms of sex one would only expect to see in pornography, the forms of sex that homosexuals tend to enjoy somehow.

My conclusion was that liberals want to teach children, small kids that are learning what 1+1 is, about detailed sexual information. They want to continue that education up until the age of 10 before the child even hits puberty. And "pro-life" liberals go along with this nonsense as part of thier justification to support liberal Democrats.

Do you have any kids in that age range?

[/quote]

I don't think your arugment is rational based on what you've said so far. I think in this case we should agree to disagree.

No, you don’t think my argument is rational because their is no rational argument for the topic at hand. There are other people here voicing thier opinion, find one you feel is rational to you’re tastes and start the debate. Otherwise, I can only assume that because this topic severely ruffles the feathers of conservatives, you are only posting here out of liberal pride. You have yet to provide an argument for it because you know there is no argument for it. The people promoting this agenda deserve to be described in a way that I am not allowed to describe them here.

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:13, topic:205232"]
No, you don't think my argument is rational because their is no rational argument for the topic at hand. There are other people here voicing thier opinion, find one you feel is rational to you're tastes and start the debate. Otherwise, I can only assume that because this topic severely ruffles the feathers of conservatives, you are only posting here out of liberal pride. You have yet to provide an argument for it because you know there is no argument for it. The people promoting this agenda deserve to be described in a way that I am not allowed to describe them here.

[/quote]

Sorry, I'm not here to argue; rather engage in rational debate. There is nothing to be gained by attempting to debate this with you and as I stated earlier we'll have to agree to disagree on this topic.

[quote="gamewell45, post:14, topic:205232"]
Sorry, I'm not here to argue; rather engage in rational debate. There is nothing to be gained by attempting to debate this with you and as I stated earlier we'll have to agree to disagree on this topic.

[/quote]

Well, now that you have established that there is no ammo to support this sort of nonsense. Please tell me, how do you debate here without providing an argument? Isn't that like saying that you enjoy water skiing but you don't like water? How can you debate anything without providing an argument to prove your point?

To go along with this article, do a little research on a man named Kevin Jennings, Obama's education czar. Two days ago I had never heard of him. A little researching sex ed after reading the Wyoming article brought me to some very unsavory information. The proposal to teach such small children such a spectrum of sexual things hits me in the gut as a sort of sexual abuse in itself. Like I said, two days ago I hadn't heard of any of this. I am still reeling and still very ignorant on this topic.

This is a good point. Until puberty, it is true most kids prefer same sex playmates. “No girls allowed.” “Boys are icky.” That’s normal. What is insidious is to teach them at that age, that gosh, if you don’t like girls, --or boys, in the case of girls-- you might be gay! I can see a first or second grader coming home from school to say “hey Mom, guess what I learned today–I’m gay!”

[quote="JimG, post:17, topic:205232"]
This is a good point. Until puberty, it is true most kids prefer same sex playmates. "No girls allowed." "Boys are icky." That's normal. What is insidious is to teach them at that age, that gosh, if you don't like girls, --or boys, in the case of girls-- you might be gay! I can see a first or second grader coming home from school to say "hey Mom, guess what I learned today--I'm gay!"

[/quote]

I suspect that is one of desired outcomes. Easier than granting amnesty. Think of all the votes!!

[quote="gamewell45, post:11, topic:205232"]
Its unlikely that you alone will be able to effect a positive change to what you want unless you are able to get a groundswell of support from a majority of people who live in your school district; then you'll have to convince your school board that you are right and they are wrong. It'll be an uphill battle for you the entire way.

Obviously you feel very strongly about this. I can only suggest that you consider taking your child out of the public schools and putting them into private school. The one advantage to doing this is that you can in most cases customize the education your child will receive.

[/quote]

My grandchildren are ALREADY OUT and will stay that way if I have anything at all to say about it.....they are in Catholic School which is not perfect either but it is better than the mind control they want to have on our children in the public school system. My daughter is prepared to home school them and has tossed that idea around especially as of late seeing what goes on in government run schools.

There are people (parents) in Montana now that have formed a coalition to fight this garbage. How much luck they will have, I have no idea, they are in my prayers, but if I had children of my own of school age now, I would home school them. They would literally have to put me in prison to stop me, or kill me, one or the other. Seriously, when I say over my dead body that is exactly what I mean. No way would the government program my children to pervert their sexual health in order to promote their ideology of what they consider forming a utopia in America to spread throughout the world. It's sick, twisted, and satanically inspired.

When you're 4 and 5, you have no clue about genitalia and sex acts and contraceptives. This would be a waste of money if it happens

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.