Correct or Incorrect Ruling In Your Opinion

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

And not federal appeals courts?

That would be a big, "touche;" however, the court was not at all dictating what should or shouldn't be taught.

But you can try believing that; I won't think any different of you.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

So, federal appeals courts should not be involved?

Here's the answer you're trolling...err...fishing for.

No, federal appeals courts shouldn't stick their unwanted nose into it.

HOWEVER....federal appeals courts should decide between conflicting parties who bring a dispute to their court. That's what they are there for and that's what they do. Some people call that activism. I call that deciding the cases that are brought before them...or, their job.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

So, federal appeals courts should not be involved?

They are NOT involved in what is being taught. What the decision DID say is that a parent cannot STOP a school from teaching about sex. That is all.

My guess is that this ruling was brought about by a PARENT suit and not from the school, but I don't know. someone sued and it got appealed all the way up. That is not being involved in what is being taught though; it is being a court.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

I didn't read the case so i do not know who brought but,

If the case was brought by a single parent against the school board because that parent wanted this taught what would you think.

Not trolling.....I am interested in your answer.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I didn't read the case so i do not know who brought but,

If the case was brought by a single parent against the school board because that parent wanted this taught what would you think.

Not trolling.....I am interested in your answer.

I am not sure what you mean. The parent WANTS sex education and the school won't give it, or the parent DOES NOT want sex education? My guess is, that this suit was the latter.

I would still be in favor of parents not having EXCLUSIVE right to teach their child about sex. That is just not practical and safe in today's world.

Edit: it was parents mad that a school gave a survey to students about sex.

"The parents maintained they had the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."

source: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/02/state/n125603S08.DTL

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,107]

>Yes.

Yes what?

>You see, I think both sides should be presented or neither, but that
>is not the way it is today is it?

OK, now I'm lost. Both sides of what?

[rushmc 23]

Paretn does want the sex education, school board does not....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Can't teach about any of it because a "religion" would be involved in either case.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Paretn does want the sex education, school board does not....

Dude, there's a (*gulp* democratic) process by which parents can effect change in school curricula, and that's through the school board. If enough parents back up a change, and the board doesn't act upon it, then some board members will be replaced in the next election.

If a parent took such a dispute to court, I'd personally fling poo at them.

EDIT: Clarification of vague pronoun.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Paretn does want the sex education, school board does not....

Then I think that is sad and would hope the OTHER parents change the boards mind. But this ruling works the other way around, not in that direction.

Parents are NOT sole providers of sex ed does not imply schools MUST teach it.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,107]

>Can't teach about any of it because a "religion" would be involved in
>either case.

OK, at least I understand your position. I think, though, that things like the history of Europe, the US revolutionary war, and the Pledge of Allegiance _do_ have a place being taught in US schools, even if they do contain material that may offend some families.

[rushmc 23]

You took my post wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Johnnyskydive 0]

So teaching a teenager how to use a condom is going to suddenly make in difference in their choice of when they have sex?

They were going to wait for marriage, but now suddenly with this newfound technology, they have changed their mind?

The way I chalk it up is that teaching how to use a condom (or the birth control option) isn't going to make a difference on when they start having sex. With a well rounded teenager that knows that waiting until marriage is the route they want to go, they will sit in the class and have the knowledge and not use it. On the other hand another teen is either already having sex or is seriously going in that direction. Their parents are the types who say "your going to wait until marraige....I made this choice for you and that gonna be how it is until you are out from under my roof'.....but since this really doesn't change teenagers or their hormones.....he is having sex anyway....without knowing about STDs and how to prevent them....then this "horrible" class does what the irresponsible parents couldn't or wouldn't do...taught them how to protect yourself if you do choose to be having sex.

So yes, correct ruling. Because I promise, 99% of kids don't take their parents position on the issue as the deciding factor of when they will start having sex.

Johnny Skydive!

[wmw999 2,584]

In this case, parents were asked about whether a survey could be given to their 7-10 year old children about trauma (e.g. violence). The permission slip did not mention sex, but there were questions about sex in the survey.

In this article Redstate.org (which would appear to be a more right-side kind of organization) even says:

Quote

As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law. But, we should all be outraged at the lack of respect the Ninth Circuit showed to parents -- who should be the the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex

Methinks, personally, that the court should be deciding correctly based on the law. Really. And also that the school board should mention in its permission slip that the survey included questions that could be taken as sexual, but that all had been approved by a child psychologist.

Just to interject a few facts into the discussion. I realize that sometimes they ruin a perfectly good argument , but that's my purpose in life. Right before smacking you in the cheek with a bag of frozen vinegar

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

OK, let us add one more piece of info.

Elections for the shool board are held. One of the main topics of the race is sex education. The community votes to put into place a board that supports the parents doing sex education.

One on the loosing side now takes the borad to court to force the board to have sex education in the school.

The court sides with the parent wanting sex education.

In your opinion, would this be the right thing to happen or not?

Would you call the court and activist one?

(I will answer your 20 questions when ever you want me too)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

So what they SHOULD have complained about was being misled, not the part about sex. They made a mistake in their fight and the court shot them down. Boo hoo.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

We agree there.

Sorry my posts did not convey my thoughts better

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ReBirth 0]

Just to clarify, doesn't....

Quote

As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law. But, we should all be outraged at the lack of respect the Ninth Circuit showed to parents -- who should be the the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex

Sound like this right wing organization is advocating that the Ninth Circuit push an agenda rather than follow the law? Yeah..that's what I though...damn non-activist judges!!!

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

You took my post wrong

It sounded to me like you were asking for opinions on the following scenario:

1. A parent wanted sex ed in school


2. (assumed) The school board wouldn't listen to the parent


3. The parent sued the school board

And I replied that I'd pelt the parent with sticky brown poo.

Was I off?

[rushmc 23]

thanks,
and I think we agree

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

OK, let us add one more piece of info.

Elections for the shool board are held. One of the main topics of the race is sex education. The community votes to put into place a board that supports the parents doing sex education.

One on the loosing side now takes the borad to court to force the board to have sex education in the school.

The court sides with the parent wanting sex education.

In your opinion, would this be the right thing to happen or not?

Would you call the court and activist one?

(I will answer your 20 questions when ever you want me too)

Is there a law that says schools HAVE to have sex education? If not, then I side with the school.

If yes, I side with the parents. But I agree with Sudsy, that it would be pretty dumb to go to court over it.

But really, is this arguement even a reality? Seems to me that those parents who WANT sex ed in schools would be more inclined to teach their kids about condoms themselves if no such mechanisms existed in school

Conversly, if the education is taught in school, a parent who wants to SHIELD their child cannot(except for properly used permission slips) and that is why the hoopla. Rarely does it go the otherway

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,107]

>We agree there.

Uh, you said that you couldn't teach anything that would go against someone's religious beliefs, including things like the Declaration of Independence. I said I thought those things SHOULD be taught. We don't agree, actually. But that's OK.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

I a way you supported my thoughts about schools.

They have been (allowed) to be turned into baby sitters and social behavior teachers. (who decides which behavior is right or wrong and by what messurment is that made? beside the obvious)

IMHO they should be teaching the basics and they rest is up to the family.

IMHO Sex is pretty damn basic. The birds do it, the bees do it, the fishes in the sea do it.

Whether you want them to or not, chances are your kids will do it too. It's a very primal drive after all.

illegible usually

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

The birds do it, the bees do it,

Time to freak, Money B gets to it,
Not a heavyweight, but I go twelve rounds
With a jab o' da stick, I go lick for lick, so...

Oh, wait, wrong forum.

[rushmc 23]

No, I did agree with you point that some things needed to be included in the teachings regardless.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln