Skip to main content

View Diary: Dems Funding Abstinence-Only Ed? (387 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hewwo?? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryru, Cali Techie

    Let's see?
    No sex until marriage.
    No marraige for GLBTI people. - (Queers, you know?)
    That leaves Queers with lifelong masturbation.
    Now sponsored by your friendly federal government.

    •  Oh, come on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bawbie

      this isn't making the difference between queer sex being accepted or not.

      This is largely about birth control, which last I checked wasn't a huge concern for us queers. Safe sex education is certainly a piece of the puzzle and needs to be there, too, but I think you're stretching things here.

      I don't think any young queers are really going to be deterred by (non)sex-ed somehow from having sex because they can't get married, and sex-ed has a long way to go regardless before giving time to queers. None of this has ever stopped us from doing more than masturbating.

      It's a sucky situation, but this hardly represents some kind of "throw the queers to the wolves" moment. Really, it's the straight girls that get screwed by it, no pun intended.

      •  The Abstinence-Only Campaign - (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, maryru, Cali Techie

        Is part of the religious right agenda that includes things like "curing" gays a la Surgeon General nominee James Holsinger.

        •  Sure (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnnygunn

          that's a piece of this.

          The fact remains that this isn't going to make some kind of pivotal difference on whether queers have access to real, useful sex ed. My biggest complaint with this, not that different from yours, is that it funnels money to a few of our political enemies, but it's also not really about queer sex in the first place. Even "our" side doesn't want to talk about that.

      •  Not just birth control, but prophylaxis. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, Cali Techie

        You know, STD prevention.

        That thing that Ignorance Only education tells students is a waste of time?

        That should get the attention of any American, Het, Hom, Bi, Trans, or A.

        Impeach, Prosecute, and Execute the Usurper.
        Destroy the Useless Cowards: Kick Every Incumbent Out in '08.

        by khereva on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 01:04:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is a HUGE issue for LGBT teens (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, maryru, Cali Techie

        Lesbian & bisexual young women are actually 3 times MORE likely to end up pregnant than their straight peers - it's a combination of a wide variety of factors:

        • lack of sex ed in schools, since people assume they're not at risk for pregnancy
        • far less likely to be on birth control
        • increased risk for sexual assault

        Moreover, when teachers are literally BANNED from talking about homosexuality outside of the context of AIDS...  When teachers can't mention condoms without talking about failure rates...  When a 17 year old kid asks a question about how to make a safe choice and their teacher is at risk of TERMINATION for telling the truth...  It's a huge issue.

        It's obviously an issue for straight kids as well - I don't mean to imply that it isn't.  But it's assumptions like htis one - assumptions that are taught in curricula that address the issue at all - that leave LGBT teens at increased risk.  

        Sex ed is critical for EVERYONE.  Even for "us queers."

        And no, gay teens aren't going to be deterred.  They're just going to be at a hugely increased risk of STDs and pregnancy - which is unconscionable when we know how to protect them.  We have to stand up for education.

        •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cali Techie

          I don't disagree.

          But this funding is not about

          teachers are literally BANNED from talking about homosexuality outside of the context of AIDS...  When teachers can't mention condoms without talking about failure rates...  When a 17 year old kid asks a question about how to make a safe choice and their teacher is at risk of TERMINATION for telling the truth...

          so far as I can tell, at any rate.

          We need real sex ed in this country, it's vitally important for all the reasons you've given and more. But this funding deal doesn't appear to me to have much to do with whether or not LGBT teens have access to the information they need about safe sex, etc. We have a long road in fighting for that ahead of us still.

          Your point about rates of pregnancy is well taken. I was being hasty and apologize for that.

          •  Except that it is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            maryru

            That's exactly what is mandated in these curricula.  

            Waxman's study concluded that over 80% contained false or misleading information, often perpetuating stereotypes and demonizing gays.  One of the leading carricula teaches that 50% of gay male teens have AIDS, and that homosexuality can be cured.

            Mostly though, you're right - it's about something much bigger.  It's about science, it's about ensuring that our youth have access to the medically accurate and unbiased information they need to avoid potentially deadly decisions out of simple ignorance or silence.

            •  You're absolutely right (0+ / 0-)

              about the mandates in the funding. Most people don't understand how regressive and harmful it is.

              And they are extending the age to 29 because many schools are not letting them in to teach it any more and they have to find new audiences, like church groups.

              This is so discouraging.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site