Sex Education for Kindergarteners



Barack Obama (D-Ill) told Planned Parenthood on Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners as long as it is age-appropriate “is the right thing to do.”
“But it’s the right thing to do, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”

You can watch the video of his comments at ABC News. Well I can’t say that I am surprised. I’ve heard different people on the news tonight defining what was meant by “age-appropriate”. The talking points are that kindergarteners would learn about good touch/bad touch and learning about different body parts. I will concede that he has made it clear that he isn’t in favor of explicit sexual education for kids that young and that he is in favor of parents opting out.

Here is my beef with sex education in the schools. Public schools are having a hard enough time teaching the basics, why in the world do we want them to take on another subject? It isn’t their job! It is the parents’ job to teach them about sex. Cheryl and I talked to our kids about good touch/bad touch we don’t need another adult doing it. Kids should not be taught values that may contradict what their parents teach. Instead of opting out, how about this. If we must have it, why not requiring parents to opt in (we can do that with evolution too, but that is for another post)? Senator Obama, “comprehensive” sex education is the wrong thing to do.

If you like what you read, sign-up to get CT in your inbox!

Comments

  1. Pat Hawks says

    We can all see what a great job parents in this country are doing of teaching their kids about sex?

    I think it’s an unfortunate reality that parents *are not* teaching their kids what they need to know. While I agree that schools have many other important things to teach, we have a responsibility not to leave our youth in the dark.

  2. Pat Hawks says

    We can all see what a great job parents in this country are doing of teaching their kids about sex?I think it’s an unfortunate reality that parents *are not* teaching their kids what they need to know. While I agree that schools have many other important things to teach, we have a responsibility not to leave our youth in the dark.

  3. Pat Hawks says

    We can all see what a great job parents in this country are doing of teaching their kids about sex?I think it’s an unfortunate reality that parents *are not* teaching their kids what they need to know. While I agree that schools have many other important things to teach, we have a responsibility not to leave our youth in the dark.

  4. Shane Vander Hart says

    Hey Pat, thanks for the comment. I’m curious as to what kids need to know that parents are not teaching?

    I agree that there are some parents who really stink at this. What we should be doing as the church is equipping parents to teach their kids on not only this subject, but other issues that will come up and how to look at it from a biblical worldview.

    You see the problem I mainly have with “comprehensive sex education” compared to abstinence only is that it treats kids as though they are just a bunch of minks unable to control themselves. The rationale is, “well they are going to do it anyway, so we might as well teach them to do it in a safe manner.”

    But this unfortunately perpetuates a lie. There is no such thing as “safe sex” outside the boundaries of marriage. Condoms fail, miserably. That is if kids would even use them, which surveys have shown that kids involved in having sex before marriage do not use any type of protection. This was, by the way, BEFORE abstinence education was heavily pushed.

    Not to mention there are a lot of other pieces of comprehensive sex education that should not be taught. I do not want my children being taught that same sex couples are normal. I don’t want elementary aged children being taught about gender identity issues. There is a major agenda behind comprehensive sex education that is a direct assult to traditional family values, and again have no business being in the school

    The only 100% way somebody can avoid contracting an STD or having an unplanned pregnancy is abstinence.

    So I disagree with you in that schools have a responsibility. They don’t. Their responsibility is to educate children about reading, math, science, social studies, etc. Unfortunately many schools suck even at doing that. It is the parents role, and schools need to stop taking on things which belong in the home.

    So back to my original idea. If parents do not want to teach their kids about sex and would rather have the schools do it. Let them opt in, and even pay for it. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund programs for the benefit of lazy, irresponsible parents.

  5. Shane Vander Hart says

    Hey Pat, thanks for the comment. I’m curious as to what kids need to know that parents are not teaching?I agree that there are some parents who really stink at this. What we should be doing as the church is equipping parents to teach their kids on not only this subject, but other issues that will come up and how to look at it from a biblical worldview.You see the problem I mainly have with “comprehensive sex education” compared to abstinence only is that it treats kids as though they are just a bunch of minks unable to control themselves. The rationale is, “well they are going to do it anyway, so we might as well teach them to do it in a safe manner.”But this unfortunately perpetuates a lie. There is no such thing as “safe sex” outside the boundaries of marriage. Condoms fail, miserably. That is if kids would even use them, which surveys have shown that kids involved in having sex before marriage do not use any type of protection. This was, by the way, BEFORE abstinence education was heavily pushed.Not to mention there are a lot of other pieces of comprehensive sex education that should not be taught. I do not want my children being taught that same sex couples are normal. I don’t want elementary aged children being taught about gender identity issues. There is a major agenda behind comprehensive sex education that is a direct assult to traditional family values, and again have no business being in the schoolThe only 100% way somebody can avoid contracting an STD or having an unplanned pregnancy is abstinence.So I disagree with you in that schools have a responsibility. They don’t. Their responsibility is to educate children about reading, math, science, social studies, etc. Unfortunately many schools suck even at doing that. It is the parents role, and schools need to stop taking on things which belong in the home.So back to my original idea. If parents do not want to teach their kids about sex and would rather have the schools do it. Let them opt in, and even pay for it. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund programs for the benefit of lazy, irresponsible parents.

  6. Shane Vander Hart says

    Hey Pat, thanks for the comment. I’m curious as to what kids need to know that parents are not teaching?I agree that there are some parents who really stink at this. What we should be doing as the church is equipping parents to teach their kids on not only this subject, but other issues that will come up and how to look at it from a biblical worldview.You see the problem I mainly have with “comprehensive sex education” compared to abstinence only is that it treats kids as though they are just a bunch of minks unable to control themselves. The rationale is, “well they are going to do it anyway, so we might as well teach them to do it in a safe manner.”But this unfortunately perpetuates a lie. There is no such thing as “safe sex” outside the boundaries of marriage. Condoms fail, miserably. That is if kids would even use them, which surveys have shown that kids involved in having sex before marriage do not use any type of protection. This was, by the way, BEFORE abstinence education was heavily pushed.Not to mention there are a lot of other pieces of comprehensive sex education that should not be taught. I do not want my children being taught that same sex couples are normal. I don’t want elementary aged children being taught about gender identity issues. There is a major agenda behind comprehensive sex education that is a direct assult to traditional family values, and again have no business being in the schoolThe only 100% way somebody can avoid contracting an STD or having an unplanned pregnancy is abstinence.So I disagree with you in that schools have a responsibility. They don’t. Their responsibility is to educate children about reading, math, science, social studies, etc. Unfortunately many schools suck even at doing that. It is the parents role, and schools need to stop taking on things which belong in the home.So back to my original idea. If parents do not want to teach their kids about sex and would rather have the schools do it. Let them opt in, and even pay for it. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund programs for the benefit of lazy, irresponsible parents.

  7. Sista Cala says

    This fight of faith is hard sometimes, but not nearly as difficult as fighting the system. How can the schools do a proper job w/sex ed, when they are missing the mark w/regular subjects?

  8. Sista Cala says

    This fight of faith is hard sometimes, but not nearly as difficult as fighting the system. How can the schools do a proper job w/sex ed, when they are missing the mark w/regular subjects?

  9. Sista Cala says

    This fight of faith is hard sometimes, but not nearly as difficult as fighting the system. How can the schools do a proper job w/sex ed, when they are missing the mark w/regular subjects?