Disturbing Anti-Family, Anti-Religion Sentiment at the U.N.

[california boy]

Where is Dan'l/Darin?

We already know that the military kids are being forced into re-education in order to accommodate the despicable end of DADT.

Yeah it is horrible isn't it. I hear these military children are being taught tolerance and respect for others. Christ certainly never intended that to happen and neither did the church. What is going on with the world today.

[california boy]

Where is Dan'l/Darin?

We already know that the military kids are being forced into re-education in order to accommodate the despicable end of DADT.

I just found a link to what is being taught in the military. It is way worse than I thought. We gotta stop this. Wrap yourselves around the American flag, pick up picket signs from your local ward leader and lets fight this training tooth and nail. Here is some of the horrible pro gay agenda being taught to our sailors. Christ would never put up with this and either should we if we are to call ourselves Christians.

What service men are being taught.

[TAO]

Thanks for bringing some sanity to what was an over the top hysteric take on a "discussion" taking place in the U.N. Really. Is the U.N. going to force their views on our school districts? And just how are they planning to do that. Some groups seem to thrive on hysteria.

Not on our school districts necessarily, but perhaps the ones in Europe. It is a very realistic worry, considering how touchy the subject is, and so being vigilant is not a bad thing.

Does sex education need to be taught in middle-school? The answer is yes. You are very naive if you think that sex is not starting in middle schools.

Oh no, sex is definitely starting in middle schools. I go to a school which isn't persay a 'gang-banger' school, but it isn't a 'white-washed' school either. It is very racially diverse, let's put it that way. But I will tell you, by middle school, people DEFINITELY know about sex. They do not need more sex education, they need less if anything. Our education consisted of several guest talking about the dangers of choosing to have sex before mairrage. Why do they do it that way? Because going into the mechanics of sex, which is unessential, promotes, rather than discourages sex by those who are students.

In other words, talking about the mechanics of sex is counterproductive towards the purpose of sex education. And talking about the 'other things' mentioned in the article would be even more counterproductive. Yes, we should talk about sexually transmitted disease, but there is really very little need to go into much detail, other than upon the awful symptoms of the diseases.

How that is done should be between the school board and parents. Ignorance does not make someone safe from immoral sex acts.

Children in middle school are not ignorant. Even I, an Autistic Anti-social Wierdo wasn't ignorant. If I wasn't ignorant, I think it would be very few and far between that someone was ignorant. In any case, even if they are ignorant, I'm sure their future wife can educate them in those aspects. Ignorant people also are very hestiant to do something 'wierd' oftimes, and something constituting touching another person constitutes 'wierd' so it is unlikely that ignorant people would get involved in that sorta stuff anyways.

I don't think the U. N. has a place at that table. I also don't believe religion has a place at the table either. Religious beliefs happen in the home. If you can not instill religious beliefs in your children in your home, then you are failing as parents. The world is not your chapel, your home is.

California Boy, parents get a very limited amount of time around their children in the days of the school year. Expecting parents to teach their beliefs to children in that limited period of time is a rather high standard. It'd be like asking teachers to teach all of their core material in half the time. They could do it - but some stuff would be left out. In addition, it is not the government's responsibility to teach children on touchy issues like this, that is what causes political bickering, which we really need less of in the US.

That's why I kinda think it is ridiculous, to extend sex education to these subjects... because it is already too explicit as is, imo.

[california boy]

Not on our school districts necessarily, but perhaps the ones in Europe. It is a very realistic worry, considering how touchy the subject is, and so being vigilant is not a bad thing.

What do you base this comment on?? Do you think that what ever the UN decides, European countries are forced to follow?? Can you give me some factual information here rather than just your feelings??

Oh no, sex is definitely starting in middle schools. I go to a school which isn't persay a 'gang-banger' school, but it isn't a 'white-washed' school either. It is very racially diverse, let's put it that way. But I will tell you, by middle school, people DEFINITELY know about sex. They do not need more sex education, they need less if anything. Our education consisted of several guest talking about the dangers of choosing to have sex before mairrage. Why do they do it that way? Because going into the mechanics of sex, which is unessential, promotes, rather than discourages sex by those who are students.

In other words, talking about the mechanics of sex is counterproductive towards the purpose of sex education. And talking about the 'other things' mentioned in the article would be even more counterproductive. Yes, we should talk about sexually transmitted disease, but there is really very little need to go into much detail, other than upon the awful symptoms of the diseases. Children in middle school are not ignorant. Even I, an Autistic Anti-social Wierdo wasn't ignorant. If I wasn't ignorant, I think it would be very few and far between that someone was ignorant. In any case, even if they are ignorant, I'm sure their future wife can educate them in those aspects. Ignorant people also are very hestiant to do something 'wierd' oftimes, and something constituting touching another person constitutes 'wierd' so it is unlikely that ignorant people would get involved in that sorta stuff anyways.

I don't disagree with you that the mechanics don't necessarily have to be taught. But on the other hand, each STD is transmitted through the mechanics of sex. So if the purpose of sex education is to decrease the contacting of STD's and unwanted pregnancies, you have to talk a little about how they are spread don't you? For example girls and boys thinking that they can't catch a STD by having oral sex. If you don't explain to them how that can happen, and since they already know how to do it, what do you think is the best way to handle that issue?

California Boy, parents get a very limited amount of time around their children in the days of the school year. Expecting parents to teach their beliefs to children in that limited period of time is a rather high standard. It'd be like asking teachers to teach all of their core material in half the time. They could do it - but some stuff would be left out. In addition, it is not the government's responsibility to teach children on touchy issues like this, that is what causes political bickering, which we really need less of in the US.

That's why I kinda think it is ridiculous, to extend sex education to these subjects... because it is already too explicit as is, imo.

What are you talking about here?? Parents get very limited amount of time with their children during the school year??? Are you saying that if a parent wants to teach their children about the moral and medical reasons for not having sex before marriage, there just isn't time to do that??? If that is your case for not allowing sex education in the schools then we have much bigger problems than spend 2 hours a year during class time to talk about sex education. To me, that is a much more disturbing anti-family, anti-religion threat than what the UN is discussing.

[frankenstein]

Well, were Jaybear is not, Frank is.

Do you only have insults to offer? Do you have anything of value to offer? Do you have an articulate counter to what I presented? Do you have anything to say about someone using lies to garner support for their side?

Rather than reading "rightwingnews" one would better to go the source that the rightwingnews hack copy and pasted from ---> Catholic Families and Human Rights Institute.

The correct statement is "Where someone is using falsehood to create fear and animus towards another group, there Frank is presenting the facts and dispelling the falsehood"

the "traditional family" folks have and continue to use lies or distortions to spread fear and animus, and Yes, I will respond with the truth when lies or distortions are being used.

[frankenstein]

There is safety in being vague, that there is. I am fine with how it is, and going into more detail, imo, is going to lead to more problems.

Best Wishes,

TAO

It would appear the vagueness taught to the good christian woman I mentioned did her harm.

I do agree with your statement "any use of your sexually-related organ in relation to another person has the danger of an STD", though I venture to say, many do not even get that much "education", especially from parents.

[TAO]

What do you base this comment on?? Do you think that what ever the UN decides, European countries are forced to follow??

Force isn't the problem. Influence is.

Can you give me some factual information here rather than just your feelings??

1962 Cuban Missle Crisis - General U Thant acting as a negotiator.

Rand Corporation research - 7 out of 8 UN cases result in peace, compared to 4 of 8 US cases.

Decline in genocide, wars, and human rights abuses

Source: Wikipedia (not all that good, but it'll do).

I don't disagree with you that the mechanics don't necessarily have to be taught. But on the other hand, each STD is transmitted through the mechanics of sex. So if the purpose of sex education is to decrease the contacting of STD's and unwanted pregnancies, you have to talk a little about how they are spread don't you? For example girls and boys thinking that they can't catch a STD by having oral sex. If you don't explain to them how that can happen, and since they already know how to do it, what do you think is the best way to handle that issue?

Then use what I told Frank - 'any use of your sexual organ with another person can result in an STD'. No need to talk about oral, or other things. Just say 'any type whatsoever'.

What are you talking about here?? Parents get very limited amount of time with their children during the school year??? Are you saying that if a parent wants to teach their children about the moral and medical reasons for not having sex before marriage, there just isn't time to do that??? If that is your case for not allowing sex education in the schools then we have much bigger problems than spend 2 hours a year during class time to talk about sex education. To me, that is a much more disturbing anti-family, anti-religion threat than what the UN is discussing.

Yes, parents do get limited amount of time with their children during the school year. Many have to put their kids into daycare, many work on the weekends, many have busy lives in addition to 8 hours of the day being taken up by school.

Also, if it's so 'easy' for parents to teach, the government shouldn't have to be involved at all. On the other hand, if it is 'difficult' to teach, the limited time given to parents to be with their children is to blame, and less time needs to be spent in school. So is it easy or difficult for parents to teach their children sex education? Because obviously, changes need to be made if mechanics are having to be taught to children in school. That means either school is taking up to much time, or government is stepping out of it's proper limit. Which is it?

[TAO]

It would appear the vagueness taught to the good christian woman I mentioned did her harm.

That's why the statement should be 'any use'. I'm not sure exactly how she was taught though... so we'd have to go back and look at individual cases and the like.

I do agree with your statement "any use of your sexually-related organ in relation to another person has the danger of an STD", though I venture to say, many do not even get that much "education", especially from parents.

Yes, I will say there are a few who won't get that education from parents... I only know of one so far in my life... he wasn't taught about anything whatsoever relating to the subject... which resulted in awqward comments at school and such... but I believe his parents wanted to teach him about it when he was older or something. I don't know for sure.

Bleh, this conversation is getting to tense XD. I need to chillax.

[california boy]

It appears this whole thread was created to instill fear and insite some kind of misdirected call to arms against the UN or who ever this is supose to be against. There appears to be nothing "disturbing anti-family, anti-religious about what the UN is discussing. It is just the typical unfounded right wing fear mongering that seems to occure on a regular basis. For some reason this group feels it is their job to instill unjustified fear on the naive American population on a regular basis. Nothing to see here, move on.

[CQUIRK]

Yeah it is horrible isn't it. I hear these military children are being taught tolerance and respect for others.

Tolerance?

More like indoctrination to me.

There's a difference between tolerating those of other beliefs and lifestyles, and being made to accept them and also face punishment for not doing just that.

[CQUIRK]

It appears this whole thread was created to instill fear and insite some kind of misdirected call to arms against the UN or who ever this is supose to be against. There appears to be nothing "disturbing anti-family, anti-religious about what the UN is discussing. It is just the typical unfounded right wing fear mongering that seems to occure on a regular basis. For some reason this group feels it is their job to instill unjustified fear on the naive American population on a regular basis. Nothing to see here, move on.

Typical Left-wing rhetoric.

You ought to consider becoming a comedian.

[california boy]

Tolerance?

More like indoctrination to me.

There's a difference between tolerating those of other beliefs and lifestyles, and being made to accept them and also face punishment for not doing just that.

Did you read the link that reports what is actually being taught to the military??? What did you find in what is actually being taught to be so horrible?

If you are going to make such a statement, CFR please.

[california boy]

Typical Left-wing rhetoric.

You ought to consider becoming a comedian.

so your approach is personal name calling rather than some substantual fact. That should go a long way to further your agenda here.

[Calm]

Thoughts?

-Smac

I think there is enough snideness in the article that I would want to triplecheck every statement for context before making any actual judgment (as opposed to my usual doublechecking).

[USU78]

It appears this whole thread was created to instill fear and insite some kind of misdirected call to arms against the UN or who ever this is supose to be against. There appears to be nothing "disturbing anti-family, anti-religious about what the UN is discussing. It is just the typical unfounded right wing fear mongering that seems to occure on a regular basis. For some reason this group feels it is their job to instill unjustified fear on the naive American population on a regular basis. Nothing to see here, move on.

Just re-education camps for parents, who will have their children removed from them because they refuse to give up their quaint, antiquated religious ideas and keep insisting they be passed on to their offspring.

[Jeff K.]

I have worked with the UN. They are amoral and sometimes do more harm than good. How else does one account for Libya being in the human rights committee until a few days ago?

[california boy]

I have worked with the UN. They are amoral and sometimes do more harm than good. How else does one account for Libya being in the human rights committee until a few days ago?

You are probably right. The whole organization has not done one decent humanitarian thing in its entire history. It was probably spawned by satan. Any Christian should do all they can, even if they have to distort the facts to fight against this evil organization whose sole purpose is to take down families and religion.

[LeSellers]

What are you talking about here?? Parents get very limited amount of time with their children during the school year???

I can't say what TAO meant, but the answer is "yes, parents have very little time to talk to the their children about sex (or anything else)

[USU78]

Here's a dirty little secret, Lehi: The State can do you no harm if you keep your kids out of public schools, even if your "homeschooling" is a joke and a travesty. There's no way to charge either child or parent with a crime so long as the parent keeps up-to-date on state filings. No actual educating need take place.

[DH]

In my experience, people don't need to be taught about the mechanics of the 'other' sex related things to know the danger of STD's. Rather, say that any use of your sexually-related organ in relation to another person has the danger of an STD. No need to make it any more specific. Keep it vague. Furthemore, when I went through health class, they on purposely did not go into great detail about the mechanics of even regular sex, and so I do not think that mechanics of other related things are needed whatsoever. There is enough talk that goes on at school for someone to already know by that time period, sex education, if anything, is little needed, in relation to regular education.

There is safety in being vague, that there is. I am fine with how it is, and going into more detail, imo, is going to lead to more problems

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree--there is danger in being vague. I think sex education ought to be taught in middle schools, and it ought to be specific and thorough. It is not necessary that a specific ideology be taught--just the science, the mechanics, and a common-sense approach that teaches kids to be careful with sex, both when dealing with their own feelings, and to protect themselves against potential abuse.

I was taught sex education in middle school, and they were frank and open about it. It's a good thing, too, because when my father sat me down for "the talk," he was so vague (and sweating bullets! lol) that I would have had no idea what he was talking about had I not already been taught about it in health class. My wife was never told about sex either at school or at home, and as a result, she literally did not know how babies were made, or how sex was done until she got married to her first husband, and he had to explain it to her!

Yes, kids talk about sex amongst themselves. Is that an adequate substitute for sex ed? Absolutely not! Kids tell each other all kinds of crazy stuff, and it's important, IMHO, that teachers and parents make sure kids get accurate information rather than just whispered hear-say and pornos from their peers.

Sex ed helps reduce the spread of STDs, and it lowers the rate of teen pregnancy. Being LDS, we agree that abstinence until marriage is the best policy. But being human, we all know that no matter how much we discourage it, teens will have sex. It's better that they know how to take care of themselves than not.

[frankenstein]

My wife was never told about sex either at school or at home, and as a result, she literally did not know how babies were made, or how sex was done until she got married to her first husband, and he had to explain it to her!

This is from the wife of an Institute Director who was co-teaching the Celestial Marriage class with her husband

"I can't wait to talk you all about sex. We [The LDS people] spend all your youth telling you how bad sex is [premarital], and then you go into marriage not knowing how wonderful and great it really is and should be."

She was referring too people who think sex once a month is normal (my sisters friend, whose husband left the Church and announced he was homosexual, said "I never saw it coming [divorce and husband being homosexual] because we had sex a lot, like once a month"). And to people who think wanting sex more than once a month makes a person a pervert. And people who think sex is only for procreation and never for recreation.

I do not think student needs to be taught about the how's. As for being taught heteroseuxality or homosexuality, I do not think there is even solid evidence to teach "why" a person is one way or another.

But there is good knowledge gained in being "what can happen" with sexual activity. Much of "pop culture" involves sexuality among adults, sometimes not consenting adults (Comedian Chris Rock routine about life in prison) but what those adults, do willingly or unwillingly, makes it to the ears of kids; who need to know the dangers of what they hear about.

[frankenstein]

Further, the child's "education" (in reality it's indoctrination) is specifically designed to undermine the parents' values, so, if the parent is to teach his children his own values, he must not only do so in the face of the superior resources (taken, by force, from the parent) of the state, but must show his child that the state is wrong even though the child must parrot the party line back in class.

---------------

GRTF-welfare schools were the devil's own invention in the 1850s, and they remain his handmaidens in the 2000s.

Lehi

i can't name all the indoctrination my nieces receive at FOR PROFIT American Leadership Academy. Here is one, "Obama is black, and he will take out his black rage on white people". "If you don't work you don't eat".

How that is being taught to 8 year old girls I am not sure, for instance, do they not to eat lunch if their class work is not finished? Or is it a being taught as some kind of conservative religiosity. That I do not know, I just know, that in a

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: political sniping

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff