From: gordon@gandalf.think.com (gordon linoff)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:44:43
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com
In-reply-to: murph@buscard.fidonet.org's message of Wed, 12 Aug 92 13:11:59 EDT

In article <omLePB1w164w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:

   Mr. Gordon Linoff, in debating the bible-thumpers from his pro-choice 
   position punched some hot buttons!  Let's mix it up:

Obviously so.

   "Use your efforts to stop the need for abortion, such as supporting sex 
   education programs in school.  Use your efforts to keep babies alive once 
   they are born; in Boston, black babies are three times more likely to die 
   in the first year than white babies.  Use your efforts to provide medical 
   care for pregnant women.  Use your efforts to provide homes for youth in 
   foster care or minority children, who are not in high demand like white 
   babies.  Then come back and tell me that you are `pro-life.'"

   He, of course, is quite right on the idea but in how to "support" his 
   various efforts is where the Right and the Left disagree.  He doesn't say 
   but I'm sure he doesn't mean "support" as putting a bumper sticker on his 
   car that reads "I'm proud my child learned about sex in school."

You could ask me, but it's probably more fun to speculate
and to place arbitrary labels on people.


   I'm only guessing but I think it's safe to say that he'd like to see our 
   government, that's you and me, folks, pay for all of this supporting.

and me.  Are we forgetting that the government represents
the lesbians and gay men and pregnant women and poor
children as well as conservative white Republicans?


   That, of course, is extreme.  As a voter in a majority, I'd not cast a 
   vote in favor of funding sex education in school, universal medical care, 
   foster care subsidies, or any other program that wouldn't be in the (I 
   know you were waiting for this) "Ozzie and Harriet" mold of "family 
   values."

When sex education in public schools is placed for a vote,
let me know.  In the meantime, vote for school committee
members that support your view and I'll just wait for
another mayor (since I live in Boston and we no longer have
an elected school committee).

By the way, I don't know what "majority" you belong to, but
if you are part of an intact nuclear family with children,
you're in the minority.


   You see, I'd not be out there hitting "them" with sticks or pummeling 
   them with my fists.  I'd not call out the military to purge the streets 
   of "them."  I'd simply not encourage 'em by paying for behavior that I 
   believe to be Not a Good Idea.

Please remember that the church you belong to doesn't pay
any taxes.  And your contributions to the church of your
choice are not considered taxable income.

In other words, since I don't belong to a church, my tax
dollars are subsidizing your membership in a church.  The
money the government spends "belongs" as much to me as to
you -- and quite a bit less to any religious organization.


   Sex education in school is my favorite and a good case against it can be 
   made on many fronts not the least of which is that it simply doesn't 
   belong there.  Schools, funded with my tax dollars, should be teaching 
   the basics understood as the Three Rs.  Schools, the K-12 grades, have no 
   business mucking around in music, industrial arts, home economics, 
   physical education, and SEX EDUCATION.

What constitutes appropriate curricula for schools is quite
debatable and quite apart from the main point: Sex education
(which is common in most other developed nations) can reduce
unwanted pregnancies and the risk of contracting AIDS.

By the way, I have no intention of paying for public schools
(to the extent that I can legally prevent it) that teach
that homosexuality is immoral or wrong in any way.


   Man, whose bright idea was it that the schools should be doing all this?  
   Whatever happened to your mother insisting you take piano lessons?  What 
   happened to apprenticeships to learn a trade?  Can't your mother teach 
   you how to cook?  Are kids so lazy that they need the discipline of 
   school to get them to exercise?  Am I so old that I didn't know that 
   sandlot baseball has fallen out of favor?  <sigh>

Maybe the parents can't afford lessons because they are
unemployed?  Maybe no apprenticeships are available since
the tradespeople themselves are no longer working or because
better paying jobs require a college education?  Maybe the
threat of flying bullets keeps kids inside, or perhaps it's
only the attraction of tv?  As for cooking, fathers are as
capable as mothers and for too large a number of children,
their only adequate meals are the ones subsidized at
schools.


	. . .

   Schools are simply not equipped to teach morals.  In the antiseptic 
   environment that the government must provide, it cannot delve into the 
   morals that usually come from a religious belief.  In peer pressured 
   filled environment of school, experimenting with sex is more accepted at 
   earlier and earlier ages.

No one is preventing religions or parents from teaching
morals.

For whatever reason, Americans generally start experimenting
with sex later than people in other developed nations.
Americans also engage in sex longer before using
contraception.  This latter fact creates a disproportionate
number of teenage pregnancies and an increasing number of
AIDS cases among adolescents.

	. . .

   The government is generously subsidizing anything that, subjectively, is 
   a Wonderful Idea but in the larger picture, is degrading society.  THIS 
   is why there must be some sort of standards (the Left's code phrase is 
   "role model") set to which we should all aspire.

The government "generously" subsidizes little besides
weapon's procurement, tax benefits to the wealthy, and
tax-exempt organizations.


   If you live in a city and walk around, you might notice more young kids 
   begging for a quarter for nothing more than to play a video game.  I 
   contend this is caused by the liberal laws that allow bums (that's right, 
   I don't use the Left code: "homeless") to sleep or panhandle anywhere 
   they damned well please.  Does anyone remember the shame it used to be to 
   have to beg for your meal?  Not anymore; the government subsidizes 
   "homeless shelters."

About one-third of those "bums" are people who are mentally
ill and unable to take care of themselves without
supervision.  They were released from institutions because
of budget cuts.  Of the rest, I doubt that more than a
handful would choose homelessness to having a decent job and
a place to live (at least of the homeless I've talked to).
As for the significant number of kids who are homeless, they
are in danger and generally have no choice at all.


   Does anyone remember the shame you'd feel for accepting subsidized school 
   lunches?  Now, the kids and parents play the system to such a degree 
   where kids paying their own way are looked upon as stupid.  It's gotten 
   so bad that it's now called an "entitlement!"  Get it?  You're ENTITLED 
   to this free money!  It's yours, here, take it!

In a country where 1 out of 5 children are now born in
poverty, discussions about shame have no place.  There are
children gravely in need in this country -- in need of
safety, food, adequate housing, and medical care.  One
judges a society by how it treats its weakest members.  On
that measure we are no better than many tyrannies of this
and past centuries.

I am ashamed that another American accuses hungry kids "of
playing the system" when they eat subsidized meals at
school.


   At such a young age, we're teaching our kids that the government will 
   provide - we don't NEED a family.  We're ENTITLED to expect a helping 
   hand and that we needn't take responsibility for our own blunders.

Most welfare policies in place now were designed to protect
families.  Prior to AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent
Children), families routinely had to separate when the main
wage earner departed (because of death, disability, or
abandonment).


   I believe the Right's answer to Mr. Linoff's plea to "support" his 
   various concerns about unwanted pregnancies, unwanted children, or how to 
   minimize these conditions is the correct answer.  The Right will suggest 
   we remove sex education from school, we not distribute condoms therein, 
   and that we leave the teaching of morals where it more properly belongs - 
   within the environment of a caring, loving family - which family ideally 
   consists of two parents of the opposite sex, thank you.

You can continue to live in your dream world, which just a
fraction of the rest of the United States also inhabits.

I am going to continue to be concerned about real issues,
such as poverty, AIDS (which is growing fastest among
adolescents), teenage pregnancy, providing hungry American
children with adequate nutritition, and preventing the
sexual abuse that many of your loving families inflict on
their children.


   Now, then, I understand that the pendulum has swung to the Left where the 
   Left still believes in Utopia and that there is no consequences of 
   stupidity - things like getting pregnant while not married.

Abortion and contraceptions are usually preferable to unwed
motherhood.  Are you supporting these options?

                                                                I contend 
   that within a generation, a society led by the Right would quickly make 
   them understand that the government will not be so quick to ride to the 
   rescue by making their baby magically disappear.  At that point, they 
   might take responsibility for preventing it in the first place without 
   the government's or school's prodding.

It seems like the "Right" has already had its generation and
these problems are getting worse, not better.  A caring
society will (one day) do more to solve our problems than
the condemning one that exasperates them.

Your "Right" believes ignoring ("hear no evil; see no evil")
social problems makes them disappear -- at least in their
consciences.  Give me a society that cares for its members
and empowers them to take responsibility for their lives any
day.

--gordon


				   - - - Murph

   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
Newsgroups: ne.politics