mimartin Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 No, McCain ad said that his problem was the bill taught comprehensive sex education to Kindergarteners. However, he fails to take into consideration this line from the bill course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.[/Quote] As to the other parts of the bill that have nothing to do with Kindergarteners, I find preventing HIV, sexual transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies a worthy cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 As to the other parts of the bill that have nothing to do with Kindergarteners, I find preventing HIV, sexual transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies a worthy cause. Read section 1 again, because you're missing a key piece: Each class or course in comprehensive sex 14 education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall 15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted 16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread 17 of AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in 18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology. (had to manually take out crossed out words) It goes on to say: 19 (b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high 20 school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual 21 activity or behavior shall emphasize that 22 abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended is (25) pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, 26 and HIV when 27 transmitted sexually. Note lines 23-24 were all crossed out. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 12 All course material and instruction shall 13 be age and developmentally appropriate.[/Quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 mimartin does this legislation define what is developmentally appropriate for a kindergartner or any of the grade levels concerning this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 No, that is left up to the local school board. I thought that someone that believed in the Conservative Agenda would think that was the best part of the bill. Shouldn’t deciding that locally be more appropriate than the state government dictating it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 No, that is left up to the local school board. I thought that someone that believed in the Conservative Agenda would think that was the best part of the bill. Shouldn’t deciding that locally be more appropriate than the state government dictating it? Not when the decisions are arbitrary based on people's whims. If you're going to make a law like this you need to be specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Not when the decisions are arbitrary based on people's whims. If you're going to make a law like this you need to be specific. That's the double-edged sword though. Too specific and people will complain it's too much, and too vague and people will complain it's not detailed enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 That's the double-edged sword though. Too specific and people will complain it's too much, and too vague and people will complain it's not detailed enough. Actually, this is something I don't even think schools should be handling, this is something where parents need to take responsibility for their kids. However, reason I'm saying local government is not a good idea, see a certain city in California as an example of potential abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Actually, this is something I don't even think schools should be handling, this is something where parents need to take responsibility for their kids. However, reason I'm saying local government is not a good idea, see a certain city in California as an example of potential abuse. As of this month, there are 480 cities in California. Be more specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Wait a minute; you don’t want the control coming from the local school district? You know the government entity that has the ability to listen to the concerns of the parents that have children in that district. Just use your California example: Would you really want the state setting the details or you local school district? Personally, I’d rather the local school district make the decision. If I don’t like their decision I can make me feeling known to them and the community. I can actually run against them in the next election or I can move my child to a different district. Sure, I can move to a different state, but it is a little easier just moving the child. Actually, this is something I don't even think schools should be handling, this is something where parents need to take responsibility for their kids.[/Quote] I agree, but since teen pregnancy, sexual transmitted dieses and HIV are still an issue we should make this education available in schools. If the parents want to teach the child themselves they can always opt their child out of the class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Wait a minute; you don’t want the control coming from the local school district? You know the government entity that has the ability to listen to the concerns of the parents that have children in that district. Depends, some of it should be handled by the state, some on the Federal Level and some at the city level. Just use your California example: Would you really want the state setting the details or you local school district? Personally, I’d rather the local school district make the decision. If I don’t like their decision I can make me feeling known to them and the community. I can actually run against them in the next election or I can move my child to a different district. Sure, I can move to a different state, but it is a little easier just moving the child. Granted, I was pointing out Nancy Pelosi's district San Fransisco (sp?) as an example of how wacko a local government can be. I agree, but since teen pregnancy, sexual transmitted dieses and HIV are still an issue we should make this education available in schools. If the parents want to teach the child themselves they can always opt their child out of the class. Maybe, but it's a little over the top to be teaching kindergartners about this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Maybe, but it's a little over the top to be teaching kindergartners about this stuff. I do believe that it has been mentioned a number of times that the plan would only teach things "age appropriate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 It's been mentioned a thousand times and ignored a thousand times by people who want to smear Obama. Are you surprised, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 It's been mentioned a thousand times and ignored a thousand times by people who want to smear Obama. Are you surprised, though? Not in the least, Inyri. Not in the least. So, why do said 'people' continue to ignore this information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 It's been stated many times that, as far as young children go, things like "what is inappropriate touching" would be taught so that children would be aware they were being abused instead of thinking it was acceptable. They're not going to be taught how to fit the condom onto the banana. But circulating smear press about Obama is much more effective, so ignoring the facts for the sake of press is easier and more productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Not in the least, Inyri. Not in the least. So, why do said 'people' continue to ignore this information? Because when we do our own research we've found a lot of the media is outright lieing. You know the mainstream press is in the tank for Obama when Sean Hannity (whom hates Hillary Clinton with a passion) has to defend Hillary because the media is crossing the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Because when we do our own research we've found a lot of the media is outright lieing. And are these sources credible? And not in your opinion alone- do multiple people of different beliefs acknowledge its credibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Maybe, but it's a little over the top to be teaching kindergartners about this stuff. Since they are not teaching kindergartners "this stuff" I have to disagree with you. I believe teaching kindergartners it isn't right for Mr. or Mrs. Pedophile to touch them there is appropriate , but I'm liberal like that thinking it is alright to protect our children from sexual predators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I like how during the Larry Craig sex scandal quite a few Republican news stations thought it would be appropriate to put a little (D) by his name. What were you saying about 'doing your own research' and 'lying,' Garfield? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 One of the funniest thing I’ve found about this bill is Obama name is not on it. Senate Sponsors: Sen. Carol Ronen - M. Maggie Crotty - Susan Garrett - Iris Y. Martinez - Jeffrey M. Schoenberg He voted for it, but wasn’t even added a co-sponsor. Even Conservative Republicans such as Alan Keyes supported this bill because it attempts to help protect children. However, now some are out to make that a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 How exactly do you teach about an STI while remaining 'Age and Development level appropriate'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 How exactly do you teach about an STI while remaining 'Age and Development level appropriate'? That's what I'm wondering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 That's what I'm wondering... Perhaps you don't teach it until the students are at a certain age? For the thousandth time, the bill wasn't even sponsored by Obama (provided by mimartin), and even still, it advocates teaching age appropriate material. They're not going to tell a first grader how AIDS is transmitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 One of the funniest thing I’ve found about this bill is Obama name is not on it. Then why does he name it as one of his key accomplishments then? He voted for it, but wasn’t even added a co-sponsor. Even Conservative Republicans such as Alan Keyes supported this bill because it attempts to help protect children. However, now some are out to make that a bad thing. And they need to be held accountable too, I really don't hold government in Illinois in high regard though, they are well known for corruption. Perhaps you don't teach it until the students are at a certain age? For the thousandth time, the bill wasn't even sponsored by Obama (provided by mimartin), and even still, it advocates teaching age appropriate material. They're not going to tell a first grader how AIDS is transmitted. So then why is it mandatory then according to the bill it's required to be taught in an age appropriate manner but they still have to teach it to that grade level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 So then why is it mandatory then according to the bill it's required to be taught in an age appropriate manner but they still have to teach it to that grade level. I'm sorry, I don't fully understand what you said. Would you rephrase your question, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.