The logical path of Big Government

[Danno 1,228]

MPs set for sex education debate

MPs are due to debate proposals on sex education in schools amid claims the government has watered down its plans in favour of faith schools.

The government bill would make sex and relationship lessons compulsory in schools in England from 2011.

But a coalition of unions, charities and religious groups says a late government amendment would allow faith schools to choose how they taught it.

The government has denied it could result in a rise in homophobia.

'Extensive lobbying'

Under the plans, all schools are to be required to teach children aged seven to 11 about relationships including marriage, same sex and civil partnerships, divorce and separation under Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education.

Secondary school pupils are to learn about sexual activity, reproduction, contraception as well as same sex relationships.

The Children, Schools and Families Bill states that subject is to be taught in a way that promotes equality, accepts diversity and emphasises both rights and responsibilities.

And this requirement could have been problematic for schools governed by religions that are specifically opposed to homosexuality and contraception.

In a statement on its website, the Catholic Education Service says the amendment, which was tabled by Schools Secretary Ed Balls, was secured after a period of "extensive lobbying".

But Liberal Democrat Children's spokesman David Laws said the amendment was "a serious and undesirable U-turn".

The Accord Coalition - which calls for an end to what it sees as religious discrimination in school staffing and admissions - and the British Humanist Association are among those who have criticised the amendment.

Chief executive of the British Humanist Association Andrew Copson said the amendment effectively gave a licence to faith schools to teach sex and relationships educations in ways that were homophobic, gender discriminatory and violated principles of human rights.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_n...ion/8529595.stm

Published: 2010/02/23 03:16:07 GMT

© BBC MMX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, Danno are you more outraged that sex-ed will be compulsory or that religious schools can teach it in a manner of their choosing?

[Danno 1,228]

So, Danno are you more outraged that sex-ed will be compulsory or that religious schools can teach it in a manner of their choosing?

That they would force all students private and public to be subjected to State indoctrination.

When people are Sheep as we all know they are over there... this is what happens.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That they would force all students private and public to be subjected to State indoctrination.

When people are Sheep as we all know they are over there... this is what happens.

You are an idiot if you believe any of that.

What amazes me about you is how you can present yourself as an objective, educated thinker when everything you come out with is derived from the usual stereotypical soundbites and party political talking points that come out of the media.

"Big Government" has no meaning for you, certainly not in this context as you have no experience with the UK education system or how things are taught over there.

If anyone has been indoctrinated, it is you.

[Ali G. 37]

That they would force all students private and public to be subjected to State indoctrination.

When people are Sheep as we all know they are over there... this is what happens.

What are you suggesting then? That we just close schools down.

"Big Government" is just another idiotic cliche that seems to work so well with the uneducated.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Sorry Danno, this isn't 1954 where kids learn about sex from stealing a copy of their friends father's Playboy. Kids and young adults are having sex at a younger age than the previous generation and denying them integral facts because you are clinging to a some contrived notion that sex before marriage is wrong. Teaching the facts of sex, reltationships, and the dynamics of relationships is not state indoctrination. Lets just skip this pretense you have here Danno, you object to this because it somehow insinuates that gay relationships are OK.

[Ali G. 37]

Sorry Danno, this isn't 1954 where kids learn about sex from stealing a copy of their friends father's Playboy. Kids and young adults are having sex at a younger age than the previous generation and denying them integral facts because you are clinging to a some contrived notion that sex before marriage is wrong. Teaching the facts of sex, reltationships, and the dynamics of relationships is not state indoctrination. Lets just skip this pretense you have here Danno, you object to this because it somehow insinuates that gay relationships are OK.

I believe it's not a schools place to teach a child anything and everything about life. Schools are there to increase a kid's knowledge, not to raise them in lieu of their parents. After all their parents need to actually start parenting rather than simply buying them the latest iPod. Or looking out (waiting) for a school to #### up, so that they can sue them for millions, even though zero economic loss of their own has occurred. Off-topic but it's why the majority of such lawsuits would be laughed at and thrown out in any English or civilized court.

Danno seems to think that 'Big Government' is some sort of evil force, that is taking over people and trying to indoctrinate them using a medium known as schools; which is simply not true. Without education you are left with ghettos, Detroit, the Appalachians etc..

Edited February 23, 2010 by Booyah

[The_Dude 1,142]

I believe it's not a schools place to teach a child anything and everything about life. Schools are there to increase a kid's knowledge, not to raise them in lieu of their parents. After all their parents need to actually start parenting rather than simply buying them the latest iPod. Or looking out (waiting) for a school to #### up, so that they can sue them for millions, even though zero economic loss of their own has occurred. Off-topic but it's why the majority of such lawsuits would be laughed at and thrown out in any English or civilized court.

Danno seems to think that 'Big Government' is some sort of evil force, that is taking over people and trying to indoctrinate them using a medium known as schools; which is simply not true. Without education you are left with ghettos, Detroit, the Appalachians etc..

I'll agree, parents should be teaching their children about these such things. But lets get to reality and leave the utopian scenarios alone. A lot of parents don't teach their kids about this, and a lot teach their kids blatantly wrong or unrealistic ideals (ie no sex til marriage, gay marriage will cause god to strike you down, etc.) It would do some kids good to learn a more broad perspective.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sorry Danno, this isn't 1954 where kids learn about sex from stealing a copy of their friends father's Playboy. Kids and young adults are having sex at a younger age than the previous generation and denying them integral facts because you are clinging to a some contrived notion that sex before marriage is wrong. Teaching the facts of sex, reltationships, and the dynamics of relationships is not state indoctrination. Lets just skip this pretense you have here Danno, you object to this because it somehow insinuates that gay relationships are OK.

Actually, the new bill as it stands would allow for the possibility of the opposite, or at least that's the so called controversy about this. It was initially meant to be secular. Faith schools objected stating naturally that they wanted sex education to reflect the values of their particular faith. It's a bit muddy tbh. While I agree that sex should be taught within a relationship context, I am not sure that the makeup of the relationship should be evaluated. I would have thought that teaching children to have faith in themselves, value themselves first and foremost would be the least intrusive method of ensuring that children grow up to understand the value of sexuality within a relationship context, but what do I know?

[Ali G. 37]

I'll agree, parents should be teaching their children about these such things. But lets get to reality and leave the utopian scenarios alone. A lot of parents don't teach their kids about this, and a lot teach their kids blatantly wrong or unrealistic ideals (ie no sex til marriage, gay marriage will cause god to strike you down, etc.) It would do some kids good to learn a more broad perspective.

This issue I empirically identify in numerous teenagers is now the lack of sex ed, it's that parents are not being parents They are being the best friend or simply not there at all. I don't believe it's about the parent being strict or not. I have seen kids raised in liberal households be successful and I have seen kids raised in ultra conservative households be successful and normal functioning members of society; with actually the latter being more the case.

What both of these types of upbringings have in common is that the parent was involved and cared about their child. Now, I am not talking about the modern micromanage clown azz parent or the it's the coaches fault my child is not good as sport type of parent, rather, the parent who is the adult and basically supports their child; yet also allows their kids to graze their knees. As such, this type of parenting had a big impact on myself and my friends. The thought of having a child even at 18 was not on anyone minds. Whereas, in 2010, you hear of teenagers discussing that they would try again if they had a miscarriage.

Kids seem to severely lack numerous lessons taught throughout the decades, and this is something that a public school simply does not and cannot provide. Maybe it's time parents have to go through lessons and be granted a license to raise a child. That is, once they past common sense tests. Like don't have your third child on foodstamps, as a single mother, if the 'guvamint' is going to have to pay for them again.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Booyah

[The_Dude 1,142]

This issue I empirically identify in numerous teenagers is now the lack of sex ed, it's that parents are not being parents They are being the best friend or simply not there at all. I don't believe it's about the parent being strict or not. I have seen kids raised in liberal households be successful and I have seen kids raised in ultra conservative households be successful and normal functioning members of society; with actually the latter being more the case.

What both of these types of upbringings have in common is that the parent was involved and cared about their child. Now, I am not talking about the modern micromanage clown azz parent or the it's the coaches fault my child is not good as sport type of parent, rather, the parent who is the adult and basically supports their child; yet also allows their kids to graze their knees. As such, this type of parenting had a big impact on myself and my friends. The thought of having a child even at 18 was not on anyone minds. Whereas, in 2010, you hear of teenagers discussing that they would try again if they had a miscarriage.

Kids seem to severely lack numerous lessons taught throughout the decades, and this is something that a public school simply does not and cannot provide. Maybe it's time parents have to go through lessons and be granted a license to raise a child. That is, once they past common sense tests. Like don't have your third child on foodstamps, as a single mother, if the 'guvamint' is going to have to pay for them again.

I do think that schools can provide some insight to kids about what can and cannot happen if you choose to have sex. I recall an article I read a while back (sorry no citation) about the misconceptions that kids have about sex. That was just about the actual act of sex, I would wager that most have no grasp of the future implications are or can be. Most seem to be either deluded, or highly insulated by their families. In either case, they need a harsh dose of reality. I think a secular, realistic overview would do them good. I'm not talking about moral guidance or anything of the sort.

[Danno 1,228]

I believe it's not a schools place to teach a child anything and everything about life. Schools are there to increase a kid's knowledge, not to raise them in lieu of their parents. After all their parents need to actually start parenting rather than simply buying them the latest iPod. Or looking out (waiting) for a school to #### up, so that they can sue them for millions, even though zero economic loss of their own has occurred. Off-topic but it's why the majority of such lawsuits would be laughed at and thrown out in any English or civilized court.

Danno seems to think that 'Big Government' is some sort of evil force, that is taking over people and trying to indoctrinate them using a medium known as schools; which is simply not true. Without education you are left with ghettos, Detroit, the Appalachians etc..

"Big Government" in this context is the monopoly of thought on Sex education.

Public schools are one thing but for Big Gov to intrude into private schools to make sure kids get the STATES VIEW of morality ..........is the essence of BiG GOV.

I might also add, the problem with inner city schools (code word) is not a lack of sex nor sex education.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"Big Government" in this context is the monopoly of thought on Sex education.

Public schools are one thing but for Big Gov to intrude into private schools to make sure kids get the STATES VIEW of morality ..........is the essence of BiG GOV.

I might also add, the problem with inner city schools (code word) is not a lack of sex nor sex education.

Methinks you didn't read your own article, or the background to it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Commons backs sex education move

MPs have backed a government move to allow sex education to be taught in England in a way that "reflects" a school's "religious character".

The amendment to the Children, Schools and Families Bill was passed by a majority of 345 in the Commons.

Opponents had said ministers showed "cowardice" by making the amendment in the face of religious groups' lobbying.

The government insisted there had been no "watering down" of plans to make all schools teach the biology of sex.

The "religious character" amendment to the bill was passed without debate due to a lack of parliamentary time.

'Major step forward'

The change follows what the Catholic Education Service claimed had been a period of "extensive lobbying".

Opponents of the amendment have argued it could allow faith schools to teach sex and relationships educations in ways that are homophobic, gender discriminatory and in violation of principles of human rights.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said the government had "once more bowed to pressure from the Catholic Church, betraying the children in faith schools who have a right to objective and balanced sex education".

"This cowardice will blight many lives," he added.

But Schools Secretary Ed Balls said the bill was "a major step forward" in requiring all schools not only to teach children about the biology of sex but also about relationships, and in lowering the maximum age for parents to keep their children out of sex education classes from 19 to 15.

He said: "There is no watering down of what is actually an overdue change.

"There is no opt-out for any faith school from teaching the full, broad, balanced curriculum on sex and relationship education and that is a huge step forward."

Mr Balls added: "Every school will have to teach the full curriculum in a balanced way that respects equality and is not discriminatory, but of course what we are saying is they can explain the views of their faith.

"Catholic schools can say to their pupils that, as a religion, we believe contraception is wrong, but what they can't do is therefore say they are not going to teach about contraception."

The full, amended, bill was passed by a Commons majority of 91 and now goes to the House of Lords.