Sexual Education Should be Taught in Schools

Well, thanks to MissLena, for this topical resolution to discuss and debate. I will begin by rebutting the 2nd round material and move into the 3rd round material of my opponent. She is arguing that we should use taxpayer monies to provide sexual education to children. The Huffington Post article, however, does not provide an argument that taxpayer dollars should be used for this effort. It simply makes the assumption that this is best. Without seeing an argument for the position, there is nothing I can rebut here. In fact, the HP article does not indicate why parents, themselves, could not provide a decent, well-rounded sex education to their own children. The article is merely arguing that teens will (likely) become sexually active. That is not an argument to support the position that we ought to use taxpayer monies to teach sexual education apart from parental guidance. 2nd - The second source cited by my opponent is more of the argument of the first. This is about sexually active teens and changes in their bodies. But that is not an argument that taxpayers ought to subsidize sexual education outside of the home. I would actually like to interact on this topic more in depth but I would like to see an argument set forth for it. 3rd - My opponent *could* be making the case that, since teen pregnancy occurs, that the state should, therefore, subsidize sexual education to reduce that pregnancy rate. I didn't see her make that case but let's give the benefit of the doubt here. From the ThinkProgress.org link she cites, we can conclude that teen pregnancy rates are falling all over, even in states where sexual education is not publicly funded and required in public schools. That's remarkable! That means that even where children are not forced to undergo sexual education, they still have a declining teen pregnancy rate. That is significant, indeed! In addition, these teen pregnancy rates are even lower in a sense since some (as many as 20%) are married! Therefore, it is not like having an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. At the conclusion of Round 2, she writes, "If sex ed were more straightforward, honest, and comprehensive, our younger generations would be much safer in their sexual encounters (which would also be less common)." But, again, that is not an argument on behalf of her position that we ought to be using taxpayer dollars to subsidize public sexual education. Parents could also make sex ed "more straightforward, honest, and comprehensive" and my opponent has not shown how this cannot happen. OK, well, we'll move onto her rebuttal remarks in Round 3. Her 1st objection is to close relatives only imparting what they want to about sex. She asserts, "Sexual meaning and sexuality in general is fluid." Exactly my point! If sexual meaning and connotations and taboos are "fluid" then parents or kin are best in a position to impart the local, cultural meaning of that fluidity. That rules out a standardized curriculum for all America and it saves the taxpayers millions of dollars, to boot. Her 2nd objection is to correlating promiscuity with sexual attack. I agree with her that promiscuity or sleeping around quite a bit, having multiple partners does not always lead to sexual attack. However, if parents are opposed to promiscuity in their children, they are the ones responsible for passing down their values. Taxpayer- funded public sexual education is not necessary. Her 3rd objection is that we are not debating home school education in general. However, general trends in home education, such as higher test scores, *are* relevant insofar as it paints a picture of effectiveness which is not the same picture that we have from public schooling. Thus, if parents teach their children more effectively at home, their sex education would be correpondingly more effective as well. On her 4th objection, I maintain that my opponent missed the point and did not address the substance of my argument. I argued as follows: faith-morality-based education >>>> conflict with the separation of church and state. She argued that sexual education has little flexibility in how it is taught. That is not the point. The point is that it is a sensitive area of faith and morals and is a part of family responsibility, not public education facilities and that it would violate the separation of church and state if it uses taxpayer dollars. Thanks so much for this exchange! I really appreciate MissLena in taking the time to set this up. I hope that it is a learning experience for both of us.