Religion

[Vancha]

As someone who didn't go through the American education system, what age do Americans start being taught sex ed, typically?

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

I don't think sex education is beneficial at all as they NOW have it. If a child is brought up from five or six years old knowing what sex is, what it does and how it works, then I could see sex education being useful. Having a sex education class in Junior High when half of the class has already had sex with a potential few of them pregnant is just ..... igronant. Completely utterly ignorant. It's like teaching the ABC's to steven hawkin's ... It's completely not needed.

Vacha, I have a 10 year old son, 2 year old daughter and plan on adopting a BLACK child in the next two years. I emphasize black because Warborn is right, not very many people are willing to adopt a black baby. In terms of my abilities, my son which I obtained custody of nearly three years ago has went from being in a special education program to an honor role student. My two year old is not biologically mine, but seems pretty advanced for her age. So my 'planned' parenthood was an armed bomb dropped in my lap... but after doing it for the last three years, if there is a fucking book that has a plan... I want one....

Edit: In terms of a person or a fetus, and I will get much hate from this. If it has the ability to sustain life on it's own, eg: breathe, swallow, piss, shit, blink, scream ect ect as a normal infant baby would be able to coming out of the womb... it's alive. If it can't do this on it's own, it's a fetus.

I didn't really get either of the answers I was looking for. Are you against the existence of sex education in schools and planned parenthood as it stands? I'm trying to ascertain whether or not you're someone who's against abortion, yet against the things that help prevent it being necessary.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Vancha

As someone who didn't go through the American education system, what age do Americans start being taught sex ed, typically?

I want to say it's historically been the 5th/6th grade mark, prior to the teenage stage - so between 10-12 years of age.

[Sentrosi]

Originally Posted by Firefly

My school's sex-ed came about in fifth grade. Nowadays I hear from my barely-legal employees that sixth and seventh graders are already sexually active. Do it sooner, I say. Sex ed, that is.

While I believe you Firefly, I can't help but think to the Family Guy episode with the ear sex.

[Firefly]

I have no idea what that is. Sorry. I don't watch a lot of TV.

[Baneblade]

I had sex ed in 9th grade, I could have taught the class.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Firefly

I have no idea what that is. Sorry. I don't watch a lot of TV.

It's hilarious. Basically they get the schools to teach purity rings (a joke at abstinence only) and Meg (the daughter in the family) falls in love with a boy she meets, but they want to keep their purity promise and Lois (the wife) catches her doing "ear stuff" which spread throughout their school. If you've never seen the show it tends to be fairly liberally biased.

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

I had sex ed in 9th grade, I could have taught the class.

Where was this? In Michigan I covered that in 5th and again in 7th grade. The 5th grade one was less formal but split both boys and girls into two classes. 9th grade seems kind of irresponsible.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

My son is ten now, one of the very first things we talked about after he settled in with me was sex. How it worked, what it did, how it felt good, how you can get sick from it, the whole twenty-five yards.. I did this when he was seven and I have continually talked to him about it every few months. So here WE go again, you skimming the paragraph and responding before actually taking the meaning of it, then spitting out facts and proofs.

Before I say anything, I am Vecha, not Vancha. I think you got us confused a few weeks ago and I just figured out that when you wrote "Vancha" in your post a while back it was not a typo.(not insulting you...our names are similar).

Anywho.

I admire and respect that you are taking the initiative so few parents take in better preparing their kids for the ills of an otherwise positive experience: sex.

With that said...you can't deny that Sex Education HAS shown a positive in districts where it is fully taught versus districts where abstinence is taught. STD rates have gone down, pregnancy rates have gone down, after the introduction of sex education. Is it a silver bullet? No. And if I am reading your correctly, I agree it should be taught, much, much. younger. 5th grade at the latest.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

My son is ten now, one of the very first things we talked about after he settled in with me was sex. How it worked, what it did, how it felt good, how you can get sick from it, the whole twenty-five yards.. I did this when he was seven and I have continually talked to him about it every few months. So here WE go again, you skimming the paragraph and responding before actually taking the meaning of it, then spitting out facts and proofs.

How they now have sex ed is demonstrably useful and you are a very foolish person if you insist on burying your head in the sand about this. Is it perfect? Well, what is perfect? But it's better than nothing and it helps, and your anecdotal evidence about how it was for you when you had it is totally meaningless.

[NivexQ]

Duke is saying that there isn't ENOUGH sex ed. Read what he fucking says before rebutting...

[Warborn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_edu...tes#References

Oh look it's a shitton of studies and articles which analyze the effectiveness of sexual education within the United States. How ever could such a logical person such as yourself fail to take the very obvious and basic step of doing a 30 second Google search?

Originally Posted by NivexQ

Duke is saying that there isn't ENOUGH sex ed. Read what he fucking says before rebutting...

And I am saying it isn't perfect but it works better than nothing. If he thinks he needs to supplement it, that's his prerogative, but the fact is that it is better than abstinence-only sex ed.

Read and, more importantly, comprehend what I say before you make any shitty attempts at rebutting.

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Stop hitting it personal Warborn and I wont start hitting it personal, I've got you figured already fella, and the fact that you defy everyone that disagrees with you means you need pyscholoigcal help. If you're getting it now, perhaps you need a second opinion. Real world.

You don't know anything, and the fact that you allude to wanting to meet me in person as if you think I'd be intimidated by you is evidence of that.

[NivexQ]

Originally Posted by Warborn

And I am saying it isn't perfect but it works better than nothing. If he thinks he needs to supplement it, that's his prerogative, but the fact is that it is better than abstinence-only sex ed.

Read and, more importantly, comprehend what I say before you make any shitty attempts at rebutting.

So you're argument is that it's not perfect, but we should leave it anyway, and Duke's argument is that it's not perfect, so let's try and fix it. And he's the moron?

Where did he even mention abstinence?

[Traak]

If people only practiced sex with their married-to-them partner, AIDS would not be a global epidemic.

Neither would fatherless children.

And the crime that goes with fatherless children.

There also wouldn't be the crime of rape. Or incest. Or child molestation. Or homosexuality.

A lot of murders also wouldn't happen as a result of a jealous spouse. Man, the list goes on and on.

All just by doing things God's way.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Vash02

...there is no evidence for the existence of god/s.

Where have you been looking?

[Traak]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

What created the universe out of the nothingness? It had to come from somewhere.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

God created the universe. The substance of which he made it is faith. Bible faith (not the stuff that is more generally labeled "faiths" meaning belief(s) in anything and everything) requires only two things: God's word, and belief in it, so no material substance that can be sensed in the physical realm was needed to originate the universe.

Even as Einstein's equation points out that matter and energy can change from one state to the other, substance in the physical world can be created, altered, and eliminated by faith.

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Edit: There in fact, where did God come from? What created him?

He is the origin of all things, including time, so he doesn't have to come from somewhere or somewhen.

The fact is, we don't know, but us being the fantastic race we are we have to have the answers even if their wrong.

Fact: The human race thought the world was flat 500 years ago.
Fact: The thought of flight was thought impossible 200 years ago
Fact: The thought of sailing a ship around the world was impossible 500 years ago.

Though they knew in their hearts 120% without a single fucking fathomable doubt that the world was flat, it wasn't.

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

There are a lot of things unexplained that doesn't make sense to us..... this is where faith is brought in and faith is just believing in something even if you can't see it.

And unbelief is not believing in something, even if you can see it.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

...assume that matter came out of nowhere has no scientific backing. Even the big bang theory doesn't say there was nothing. It merely says a dense hot (high energy) object expanded.

A contradiction in two sentences.

"matter came out of nowhere has no scientific backing"
"The big bang theory... says a dense hot (high energy) object expanded.

So, where did this dense, hot high-energy object come from? According to your first statement, there is no scientific backing for matter coming from nowhere. So where did the matter that supposedly caused the big bang come from?