US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

[anitram]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

I have a son in Kindergarten and another in 1st grade. There is NO sex Education, IMO, as defined in the paragraph listed that is age appropriate for either of my boys. HIV? Alcohol? Drug Use? I know is says, "age appropriate" but I think that this is something that should have been very specific in the ages where this is to be taught and it should be a hell of a lot older that a 5 year old child in Kindergarten.

Well then lucky for you the legislation included an opt-out clause for parents like yourself.

But of course that would not be mentioned by McCain either, because apparently he's into truthiness.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

I have a son in Kindergarten and another in 1st grade. There is NO sex Education, IMO, as defined in the paragraph listed that is age appropriate for either of my boys. HIV? Alcohol? Drug Use? I know is says, "age appropriate" but I think that this is something that should have been very specific in the ages where this is to be taught and it should be a hell of a lot older that a 5 year old child in Kindergarten.

For god's sake, use some common sense. Do you really thing they're going to teach those things specifically to kindergarten age kids? How many more times do you need Anitram to explain it to you?

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

I have a son in Kindergarten and another in 1st grade. There is NO sex Education, IMO, as defined in the paragraph listed that is age appropriate for either of my boys. HIV? Alcohol? Drug Use? I know is says, "age appropriate" but I think that this is something that should have been very specific in the ages where this is to be taught and it should be a hell of a lot older that a 5 year old child in Kindergarten.

Only because these points come up in the statute doesn't mean each one of the points is meant to be taught in every single year.
When one of the points isn't "age appropriate", it doesn't get taught.

[TheEdge U2JT]

Originally Posted by anitram

Well then lucky for you the legislation included an opt-out clause for parents like yourself.

But of course that would not be mentioned by McCain either, because apparently he's into truthiness.

You're missing or just ignoring the point. It was either poorly written or poorly thought out...or, most likely, both.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by flybabe

Yeah right,Obama will say all that until he gets voted in...

Wow, someone thoughtfully pointed out the exact text, someone who knows what they are talking about, and this all you bring to the table?

Just wow...

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

I have a son in Kindergarten and another in 1st grade. There is NO sex Education, IMO, as defined in the paragraph listed that is age appropriate for either of my boys. HIV? Alcohol? Drug Use? I know is says, "age appropriate" but I think that this is something that should have been very specific in the ages where this is to be taught and it should be a hell of a lot older that a 5 year old child in Kindergarten.

You don't get it. The phrase "age appropriate" is up to interpretation, and you are interpreting it in the way that allows you be against it. "Age appropriate" will mean something different when dealing with kindergardeners than it will when dealing with third graders than when dealing with sixth graders than when dealing with freshman than with dealing with seniors. I thought this was self-explanatory. No one is saying show condoms to kindergardeners. It's already been said that the only likely 'sex-ed' thing to be taught to kindergardeners is simple protective measures so that if someone tries to molest them they can scream for help. That's it. And, in all likelihood, you know it.

[anitram]

No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

I am NOT missing or ignoring any point.

Your wrong and wrong. First you insisted that you disagree with the bill because it had no age appropriate provision. I show you that it did. Then you say that there is no age appropriate sex ed for kindergarteners and I show you that your kid wouldn't be taught that if you basically signed a form.

So please tell me where I'm uninformed?

I honestly don't even know why I bother.

[Lila64]

my head hurts


anitram

[TheEdge U2JT]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

Only because these points come up in the statute doesn't mean each one of the points is meant to be taught in every single year.
When one of the points isn't "age appropriate", it doesn't get taught.

Come on, what ever happened to common sense? Write legislation with how is supposed to be implemented. There is no reason for it to be that vague and no for there to be a range of K-12 for sex ed.

[deep]

Originally Posted by anitram

IT SAYS AGE APPROPRIATE RIGHT THERE IN THE PROVISION.

This is seriously maddening.

I give up.

Section 27-9.2(a)

Obama did not even let it go to a vote

he gave up, too.

7/1/2003 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Tabled Pursuant to Rule 5-4(a)

It really is a bad idea, to let different people
use their judgment on what is age appropriate with sexual behavior and 5 year olds



Obama = bad judgment ?




Is McCain as wrong as everyone thinks on this issue?

Are the Obama people spinning themselves into the ground?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

There is no reason for it to be that vague and no for there to be a range of K-12 for sex ed.

This legislation is not vague.

[TheEdge U2JT]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

You don't get it. The phrase "age appropriate" is up to interpretation, and you are interpreting it in the way that allows you be against it. "Age appropriate" will mean something different when dealing with kindergardeners than it will when dealing with third graders than when dealing with sixth graders than when dealing with freshman than with dealing with seniors. I thought this was self-explanatory. No one is saying show condoms to kindergardeners. It's already been said that the only likely 'sex-ed' thing to be taught to kindergardeners is simple protective measures so that if someone tries to molest them they can scream for help. That's it. And, in all likelihood, you know it.

Thanks, you are making my point. "age appropriate" is open to anyones interpretation. Thats why I feel things like this should be more specific.

There was nothing in that section about "protective measures so that if someone tries to molest them they can scream for help." I also dont see that as "Sex Ed" either.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

There was nothing in that section about "protective measures so that if someone tries to molest them they can scream for help." I also dont see that as "Sex Ed" either.

No, generally when you write legislation you don't stick apples and oranges into the same section.

Henceforth, that was present in the other section which I laid out for you.

Again, I don't know why I bother.

[TheEdge U2JT]

Originally Posted by anitram

This legislation is not vague.

"age appropriate" is vague. I guarantee if we took a survey of the people in this forum as to the time it is "age appropriate" to teach Sex Ed or about contraception, there will be several different ages given.

That's because it is VAGUE. If the government is going to dictate policy like this it needs to be specific.

[deep]

Again if Obama stands by the legislation

why did it get tabled (killed) in the Ill State Senate?

and not even come up for a vote?

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

Thanks, you are making my point. "age appropriate" is open to anyones interpretation. Thats why I feel things like this should be more specific.

There was nothing in that section about "protective measures so that if someone tries to molest them they can scream for help." I also dont see that as "Sex Ed" either.

You're the one asking about common sense. It would be interpreted by school boards, people who run school districts. Do you honestly think that any school board in America is going to give the ok to show kindergardeners condoms and diagrams of sexual organs and all that? Do you? Of course you don't because the first school board to do so would be the subject of outrage and maybe even legal action brought about by angry parents.

[TheEdge U2JT]

Originally Posted by anitram

No, generally when you write legislation you don't stick apples and oranges into the same section.

Henceforth, that was present in the other section which I laid out for you.

Again, I don't know why I bother.

So you cannot have different age ranges for the different section and material that is being covered?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

You're missing or just ignoring the point. It was either poorly written or poorly thought out...or, most likely, both.

I think you're missing the point. The reason for the vagueness is that every community is different. Some communities in this country have higher rates of sexual abuse than others, the exposure is different as well for age groups, some communities are exposed earlier than others...

There was a case recently where sexual abuse occured within a small community of several young children. The school had to come in and teach the children to speak out if this happen to you, this is inappropriate, etc... Well guess what, in this highly letigious society some folks got upset. I bet some wish they had something like this now...

[deep]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

You're the one asking about common sense. It would be interpreted by school boards, people who run school districts. Do you honestly think that any school board in America is going to give the ok to show kindergardeners condoms and diagrams of sexual organs and all that? Do you? Of course you don't because the first school board to do so would be the subject of outrage and maybe even legal action brought about by angry parents.

Why push it down to 5 year olds??


why not at least 5th or 6th grade ?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

So you cannot have different age ranges for the different section and material that is being covered?

Including set age ranges would likely expose the legislation to possible constitutional issues (arbitrariness).