Quantcast
Utah

Abstinence-only sex education bill passes Utah Legislature

Comments

Return To Article
  • Tibi001 Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 6, 2012 8:48 p.m.

    Very sad, that this is one of Utah's top agenda in the year of 2012.

  • Clark Griswold Cedar City, UT
    March 6, 2012 8:58 p.m.

    This bill needs a rider so that not one penny of tax money is spent on medical care for the "abstinence only" educated students who get pregnant. Make their parents completely responsible for their medical bills, and they'll be calling for comprehensive sex education in one big hurry.

  • Knightwolf LOGAN, UT
    March 6, 2012 9:20 p.m.

    As an adult who went through sex ed in davis county in the last 10 years, I find this bill totally unacceptable. Now kids will learn even less than I did when I went through the class. Lets just go with abolishing school altogether. The students who graduate are as dumb as if we had anyway. Sheesh.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 6, 2012 9:31 p.m.

    Utah had a relatively low teen pregnancy rate before this bill. I don't know why anything needed to change. Parents could've opted out of comprehensive sex education right?

    Lame.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 6, 2012 10:22 p.m.

    A report released Thursday by the Utah Department of Health shows the number of chlamydia cases rose 50 percent in the past five years to a total of 23,166 Â making it the state's most frequently reported communicable disease. The number of gonorrhea cases doubled during the same five-year period, totaling 3,451.
    ( Deseret News 2009)

    Uh, well maybe the "abstinence only" route will decrease the STD rate?

    Ya think?

  • awsomeron1 Oahu, HI
    March 7, 2012 2:09 a.m.

    I do not think that withholding information is going to help in the matter. Ignorance is Not Bliss. Ignorance is walking around PG when a little information about protection would have help. If good information is not given by trusted people then Urban or Rural Myth will rule.

    I think people who come up with ideas like this are silly, other terms come to mind. This kind of lack of education can lead to more Abortion not less. They will most likely not do it any less also good Sex Education can prevent life threatening medical problems.

    You are not only all shook up if you Daughter comes home PG (please do not throw her out of the house to set an example for her younger sisters)Punishing a scared girl like that does not help the situation. If you need clues then watch Juno and observe her Dad and Stepmother.

    They get the needed information anyway sometimes the wrong information and sometimes after the fact.

    It is up to the family to teach Standards and Sex Ed but some of you won't and in part because you don't yourself know.

  • awsomeron1 Oahu, HI
    March 7, 2012 2:17 a.m.

    Truth seeker: What does that tell you. I can't tell you what it tells you because this is a soft board and there is no way I can say it without getting my post toasted.

    However read what truth seeker said and then use you head and then if the State wants to repress Sex Ed then you teach it your self.

    You have a right as a parent to know what your Minor Child is doing. Talk to you kid, listen to your kid and she won't come home singing "Pappa Don't Preach".

  • Anon 64 Oahu, HI
    March 7, 2012 2:21 a.m.

    Boys that have good Sex Education go on more Missions then Boys that do Not. Girlfriend of Boys On Mission who have had Sex Ed do not have to Talk to the Bishop 3 months into the Boys Mission and the Bishop does not have to call Mission HQ and get his Elder back.

    Ignorance is Not Bliss, Where the Truth is not told Urban and Rural Myth Rule.

  • Swartzy Arlington, TX
    March 7, 2012 5:50 a.m.

    I do not like sex ed done in a school class room, but it has to be done and at home is best. As a former Bishop I know not enough families are doing it. It has to be done. Your children are going to get the information from some one, it needs to be from YOU. Protect your children and give them the information NOW

    I was asked when you start teaching them sex ed at home. and my reply is the moment you pick them up the first time. It is more than words, it is respect, it is modesty and it is INFORMATION about how their bodies work. Get with it. Your kids deserve it.

    If your daughter gets pregnant or your son fathers a child, ask your self why you didn't talk to them more, why you didn't give them more information both about their bodies and about your standards. It is not an option it is a Requirement of being a parent. If you can't do it then why did you have kids in the first place. Itis part of taking care of them, like feeding them, and praying with them. DO IT NOW.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 7, 2012 6:02 a.m.

    Re: Knightwolf 9:20 p.m. March 6, 2012
    "Now kids will learn even less than I did when I went through the class."

    Yes, some parents fail to step up to the plate and teach their children basic concepts regarding morality and chastity. Others criticize the Boy Scouts of America for advocating the concept of morality. Why would any conscientious parent want to abandon their responsibility at the school gate to some teacher that may be confused about their own responsibility?

  • md Cache, UT
    March 7, 2012 6:09 a.m.

    This bill is an embarrassment.

  • jdh_md NEW YORK, NY
    March 7, 2012 6:20 a.m.

    Although I can see some elements of why the congress would pass this type of legislation, it is clearly not a good choice to simply avoid the complete issue of sex education altogether.

    It seems reasonable that the two options should be to teach sex education (including BOTH abstinence and planned parenthood....many states in the union are on the opposite side of the spectrum teaching planned parenthood only) OR decide as a state that the issue should be taught only at home and schools shouldn't touch it. This balancing act of cherrypicking topics to teach in school only paints an incomplete and unrealistic picture of the issues to the children and doesn't address reality. It is not a sin to discuss the entire topic of sex education and it has been proven several times that these school discussions don't encourage sexual promiscuity, but only inform the students about options - actually improving the chances of helping prevent STDs and other unwanted outcomes by the student.

    Obviously a delicate topic, but this bill just doesn't seem to reach the goals that it is intended to reach.

  • rbgntx Kaufman, TX
    March 7, 2012 6:25 a.m.

    Abstinence only works well here in Texas. My state is in the top five states, consistently,in the nation for teenage pregnancy. My wife teaches kindergarten and several of her student's mothers are not yet 21. Only seven of 22 students in her class are from a two parent home.

  • Ares Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 7, 2012 6:48 a.m.

    Only in Utah.... sad day.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    March 7, 2012 7:10 a.m.

    So the Senate sponsor wouldn't even yield to questions about this bill. I wonder if parents will yield to questions if their child asks about something other then abstinence only and sex.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    March 7, 2012 7:23 a.m.

    hawaii needs to worry about what they teach there and not what is taught in Utah. Education should be a local thing, but hey, thanks for injecting yourself in Utah matters.

  • katy salt lake city, ut
    March 7, 2012 7:51 a.m.

    I agree parents don't always feel comfortable talking with their kids about sex However, the best kind of education about this is from the home. Let's wait a year and hopefully we'll have some medical records (hopefully about SIDS as well as abortions) comparing our state with others and see how we come out. Unless pregnancies and abortions are on the same page, there isn't a good comparison with those. I would hope our state would have less abortions than others regardless of sex education in schools or in the home.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 7, 2012 8:01 a.m.

    Utah ranks dead last (50th) in out of wedlock births as a percentage of all births.

    If mom and dad slept around before getting married, or if mom has never bothered to get married all the class room sex ed in the world isn't going to make any measurable difference in the world. You smoke and the chances are your children will smoke. You sleep around and the chances are your children will follow your example.

    With very few exception in my neighborhood teenagers with parents who taught them chastity have followed the example their parents set for them.

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    March 7, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    If you are going to hold teenagers responsible for their actions then you have to insure that they are educated. It makes no sense to me that the same people against abortion are often the same people against sex education.

  • katy salt lake city, ut
    March 7, 2012 8:15 a.m.

    To Griswold: Why should gov. pay for those that do receive sex education in the schools and still have to deal with STD's, pregnancies and abortions? I've never seen a study done on those states that have sex education in their schools and those who don't in regards to STD's and abortions.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    March 7, 2012 8:26 a.m.

    "abstinence only" isn't education, it's indoctrination...

    If schools don't teach the children about sex, popular media and the internet will.

    Which would you rather have?

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 7, 2012 8:40 a.m.

    So health teachers can talk about how the circulatory system and the digestive system work but not the reproductive system. Can they talk about the endocrine system? Since many of the hormones creaated by the human body don't really begin production until puberty, can they talk about them? Are they allowed to use the word "puberty"? What happens to the AP Human Biology class? Will it be mandated that it be removed from the curriculum?

    Ostriches are really stupid animals.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 7, 2012 8:46 a.m.

    Re: Clark Griswold 8:58 p.m. March 6, 2012
    "This bill needs a rider so that not one penny of tax money is spent on medical care for the "abstinence only" educated students who get pregnant"

    Classical case of liberal thinking!! Perhaps parents who teach their children the benefits of virtue and chastity should receive a tax credit for not burdening taxpayers because their children didn't get pregnant before they got married.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    March 7, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    DonÂt kids get enough abstinance only education in church? Now we want the schools to teach it also?
    ShouldnÂt it be the parents that are teaching kids to be abstinent?
    This is meaningless head in the sand law.
    Kids will just get their information off the internet, just hope it accurate, it would be good if the parent taught them, and unfortunately too many parents are uncomfortable talking to their own children regarding sex and choose the head in the sand technique.
    They assume as long as they do not say anything, the kids will not have hormones.
    We should get all the parents together who think this way and find out how many of their kids became sexually active, pregnant, or got STDÂs
    This method of sex Ed is as effective as the old duck and cover films would be, in protecting people in case of a nuclear explosion.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    March 7, 2012 9:07 a.m.

    Perhaps Utah's legislature forgot that this dinosauric attitude of a Mormon dominated government, will rear it's ugly head if and when Mr. Romney, a devote Mormon, becomes the Republican nominee. This again, will be something separating Mitt from the common man and rational thinking.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    March 7, 2012 9:27 a.m.

    Katy,

    "I've never seen a study done on those states that have sex education in their schools and those who don't in regards to STD's and abortions."

    See: "Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy," Journal of Adolescent Health, 2008

    Here is the study you were asking for. They found that Comprehensive Sex Ed reduces the number of teen pregnancies, as well as the likelihood of engaging in intercourse in the child's teen years. Abstinence-Only education had no measurable effect. This is one of many studies.

  • thelogicalone salt lake city, UT
    March 7, 2012 9:31 a.m.

    You can legislate an "abstinence only" curriculum in the classroom, but you can't legislate the PG13 and R rated behavior in the halls. With all due respect to Mr. Wright, this type of thinking has been out of step for decades. The kids could probably teach him a thing or two.

  • Jeromeo Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2012 9:34 a.m.

    I believe we should... Preach: abstinence. Teach: information, ethics and responsibility.

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    March 7, 2012 9:49 a.m.

    The ignorance of this bill is truely stunning. The poor children of UT.

  • ThatsSoUtah Fredericksburg, VA
    March 7, 2012 9:50 a.m.

    I feel that sex education should be a mandatory part of the school curriculum. I believe that parents talking with kids is also important, but I support it being in school for the same reason that I support teaching a multitude of topics in school. People that are trained educators with a history of being able to communicate and connect well with young people are going to be able to do the job better than parents without that background.

    It would be better to have kids overwhelmed with factual information than being misinformed by parents who are deceiving their kids or ignorant on the topic themselves. In lieu of an actual class or portion of class on the topic, I would support an extensive optional after/before school program that discusses sex education.

    ive kids the facts, then let your morality guide you to tell your kids what you support and what you expect of them. Keeping our children ignorant should never be a viable option.

  • XelaDave Salem, UT
    March 7, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    So basically an unfunded mandate on schools to teach another course in an already tight budget situation

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    March 7, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    Hey libs:
    What is wrong with parents taking the responsibility of teaching their own children. What's next having the the schools teach religion because the parents don't? Having the secular society that pushes abortion and discourages prayer is not exactly who I want teaching my children about sex.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    March 7, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    "If schools don't teach the children about sex, popular media and the internet will.

    Which would you rather have?"

    Consider the alternative: they learn it in the home. I agree that it is uncomfortable, but it is worthwhile.

  • bikeboy Boise, ID
    March 7, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake: "You just took away the power of parents by having the state of Utah dictate what students are going to be learning."

    WRONG!!

    The state is only "dictating" what will be learned in public schools. Parents have, and should accept, the power to teach their kids more important subjects than they will EVER learn in school! Ms. Robles has it exactly backwards... when schools decide to teach comprehensive sex education, THEY take away the power of parents to decide what their kids are going to be learning.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 7, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    Rifleman, I have a few questions.

    1. Why do you hate teachers so much? Did they abuse you when you were young? Every post that you make that deals with education always finds a way to slap teachers in the face. Your first post here was no different. Most teachers are also parents; do you think they don't want children to succeed and be chaste?

    2. You call Clark's comment typical liberal thinking. Is not a similar version of such a proposal not being advocated by Rush Limbaugh with regards to contraception? At least Clark didn't call for a sex tape.

    Why are you so angry? It seems every time you post it is done to be rude or to attack someone else. Never do you contribute constructively to the conversation. I realize I'm doing the same this time, but it's honestly because I'm curious to know what has happened to make you so bitter.

    As for this topic, the kids are going to learn it. If proper education as opposed to urban legend is taught at home and reinforced at school, the kids are more likely to take it as truth rather than Mom and Dad's "rules."

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 7, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    XelaDave,

    The topic is already taught in most UT schools, including those in Salem. It's taught during health.

    This bill actually makes it more likely that districts will choose not to include it in the class at all, as I'm sure many don't want to deal with the helicopter parents and education attackers who will be on the prowl to find one instance of a teacher who goes "over the line" while teaching the course to cause a huge stink about it. The bill is a "our way or the highway" one that mandates to a T what is and is not said during the class.

    And yet, it comes from a Republican dominated legislature that promotes smaller government, personal liberty and constitutional freedoms. How interesting.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 7, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    Legislators fiddle while an economic firestorm burns.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    March 7, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    What they need to do is offer a one-quarter elective, for-credit class on sex ed that is comprehensive, and require a parent's permission to take it.

    That way, the parents who feel it is their right, duty, responsibility, and who feel up to the task of teaching their children well about the birds, bees and STDs can do it at home.

    And those who want the State to handle the job can hand it off.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    @Rifleman
    Utah has a higher rate of marriage and the lowest marriage age in the nation, of course they're going to have the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock births.

  • grip Meridian, ID
    March 7, 2012 10:57 a.m.

    It has taken years with gradual relinquishment of parents responsibility - not only in sex information - to relegate their responsibility for teaching their children to the schools. The schools mostly teach a "one size fits all" series of classes, be it the three "Rs" or the important social behavior. Parents can give one on one instruction and fit it to needs and interest. Let the schools teach the basics where answers are right or wrong and leave the emotional and personal preferences to the parents. Parents have the ability to know their children - if they will. However, the ease of saying let someone else do it is less time consuming and give the parents more time to "enjoy" the things that do not matter.

  • johnl Sandy, Utah
    March 7, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    Wow, the ignorance here in Utah is stronger than I had anticipated.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    March 7, 2012 11:35 a.m.

    A majority of Utahns still believe that sex is inseparably connected with morality, and we vote for legislators that share our opinion. Those who believe that sex is a casual recreational sport are just going to have to learn to live with it until they can get a sufficient number of voter who see it their way.

  • Utah Native Farmington, UT
    March 7, 2012 11:49 a.m.

    Had "the talk" with all my sons, some more than once. Parents need to get over the discomfort of talking frankly with their children about sex, because in the schools you only get half the information -- what is missing is the accompanying set of moral values. As parents, we need to provide accurate information and not just the values. BOTH are essential. In our home, we stress that sex is a beautiful, natural act, but something powerful which needs safeguards in order to keep a person unscathed (physically, emotionally, psychologically, etc.). Home is where we're able to teach our children the values we regard as essential to happiness, including virtue, chastity, modesty, etc. As uncomfortable as it is, we also talk about the reality of STDs, teen pregnancy, and childbirth and how the course of a life can be changed by disregarding these values we embrace. A few photos of STDs are more of a deterrent than an abstract lesson on birds and bees. Get a medical encyclopedia and have it accessible to your kids. I also recommend Brad Wilcox's thorough book "Growing Up: Gospel Answers About Maturation and Sex." Go through it with your kids, then leave it accessible.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 7, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    Claudio, your note to Rifleman is absolutely great! Thank you.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 7, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    Here is the interesting thing about all those people who say that we need comprehensive sex education. The states that already have the comprehensive sex education programs have higher teen/unwed mother pregnancies than you do in Utah.

    The interesting thing is if you look at a graph of unwed pregnancy rates and compare that to when they began teaching the basic ideas behind comprehensive sex education, you find that pregnancy rates increased once the government got involved. The government started to mandate sex education that included safe sex during the 1960's. It was during that decade that the teen pregnancy rate doubled. Is that a coincidence, or are the two related in some way?

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    March 7, 2012 12:20 p.m.

    I've never been able to understand the mentality that educating someone can somehow lead them to behave in a certain way. Young people are going to have sex whether they're taught about it in schools or not. It's better that they understand the risks and know how to take precautions rather than have them subscribe to myths about sex that they've learned on the playground. Ignorance is far riskier than knowledge. Sex education is not a license to become sexually active. It is a weapon against it. Researchers have found no evidence that these abstinence-only programs increased rates of sexual abstinence.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    March 7, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    "DeltaFoxtrot
    West Valley, UT

    "abstinence only" isn't education, it's indoctrination...

    If schools don't teach the children about sex, popular media and the internet will.

    Which would you rather have?"

    Once again ... religion pushing it's will on social issues and politics. When is it going to end? That's for the home and parents to push ...

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    March 7, 2012 12:31 p.m.

    @Riverton Cougar: The entire reason schools were required to teach sex ed in the first place is that PARENTS WEREN'T DOING IT.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    March 7, 2012 12:49 p.m.

    Shame on our legislators! If they agree that sex ed is best taught at home, are they willing to mandate it? If not, is it then OK for some kids to get no sex ed outside public-school abstinence? Let me illustrate my point: An abstinence message is totally lost on a sexually active teenager with absentee parents. We - and he - are so much better off by giving other tools to stop the pregnancies. Our uppity legislators are throwing a whole category of kids under the bus of "abstinence".

  • Luke.Bahr Orem, ut
    March 7, 2012 12:52 p.m.

    This bill is short sighted. Yes, abstinence will stop teen pregnancy and the spreading of disease. However, not every family has the same moral values. Some parents need sex education to be taught in school because they don't take it seriously.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    March 7, 2012 12:54 p.m.

    I like the idea of offering a more in depth class which would require parental permission to enroll.

    What I see happening is parents are feeling that their parental rights are being eliminated; one by one. Sex education is another avenue that has been a factor in this issue. Some areas do not require parents be informed if their minor children have an abortion, though a parental signature would be required for any and all other types of medical procedures.

    More information is generally the better option, but my concerns are when the sex ed lectures are concluded with free condoms for everyone. Giving class room instruction on how to make a bomb out of household ingredients is not always a good idea. More knowledge is not always a good thing without some morals. Schools may be great at supplying information, but their hands are tied and they may not suggest any degree of "right" and "wrong".

    Some may despise the concept of religion, but like it or not, there is such a thing as right and wrong and in an effort to free ourselves from Sunday School, we have eliminated standards and responsibility from our children's understanding.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 7, 2012 1:03 p.m.

    Re: Claudio 10:16 a.m. March 7, 2012
    "Why do you hate teachers so much?"

    I have a deep appreciation for good teachers. My problem is with those teachers who have the attitude that they know what is better for children than their parents do. I also have a problem with teachers who are confused about their own sexuality trying to pass their personal misconceptions onto our children.

    In his comment Clark Griswold thinks those who disagree with him should be ineligible for the same benefits he expects. Why not then provide special benefits for parents whose children don't get pregnant?

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    March 7, 2012 1:11 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    You make that statement as if it's fact, when numerous studies have shown the complete opposite. I've already provided a large research study that showed that comprehensive sex education results in lower teen pregnancies, and teen sexual activity in general. Where are you getting your stats?

    Seriously, schools teach that you can't drink until you're 21, but everybody seems to believe they can still teach their children to never drink. Why not follow the good public policy of comprehensive education, and leave it to parents to teach the morals of abstinence until marriage?

  • Mr. One Two Layton, UT
    March 7, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    So how about the state offer an auto-mechanic class, but don't teach anything about engines. Better yet, how about a math class that where the teacher cant mention anything about numbers. Sounds similar to sex-education but without the sex. What's wrong with this state?

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    March 7, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    We never worried about what our sons would learn in a comprehensive sex ed class. Why? Because we had already taught them more than what they would learn in any class, starting at a very young age and teaching what was age-appropriate as they grew up. They never asked the "where do I come from" questions -- they already knew. They learned about copulation and birth from the dog next door, together with us teaching them about the connection between the two. As youngsters, they knew that some people were attracted to those of the opposite sex and some people were attracted to people of the same sex because we never hid the truth about our gay and lesbian friends from them. AND they knew that abstinence before marriage and complete faithfulness after marriage was the absolutely best way to live.

    They also carried condoms when they dated. Just as the insurance policies on our cars arenÂt licenses to have accidents, condoms werenÂt licenses to have sex BUT they were insurance in case an accident happened. They never had to use their Âinsurance policies but they were prepared. Win-win.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    @ute alumni
    "What is wrong with parents taking the responsibility of teaching their own children. "

    Some parents don't try to teach about sex education. What's that going to leave kids with? Hollywood and the internet to teach them? I don't see what the problem is with a sex education program in schools that parents can opt their kids out of. That should be satisfactory to everyone but then again some people want to push their views onto everyone else.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    March 7, 2012 1:29 p.m.

    Come on, Utah. Sex Education is so much more than having sex and intercourse. Our teenagers are experiencing changes in thier bodies at a rate only paralleled by pregnancy. Teen girls are growing breasts. Teen boys will ejaculate in their sleep. Attitudes towards peers are changing with hormonal changes. Interest and curiousity in sex is very high.

    I believe these discussions need to take place in the home. But guess what--9 months of the year, our teens are at school more often than they're at home. They're hearing things from peers, getting crazy ideas, even ideas the un-religious wouldn't agree with.

    I like having sex education in schools. Our schools help our kids learn how to think for themselves. Discussing sex in schools provides a healthy forum for our kids to talk with their peers, so they can talk about facts rather than rumors and curiosities. Besides, most parents don't understand sex themselves--where would they learn about it? In church?

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 7, 2012 2:14 p.m.

    Will the Utah legislature next mandate that science be taught at home?
    It won't surprise me a bit.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 7, 2012 2:33 p.m.

    Rifleman,

    Thanks for looking out for us and our children. The plague of "gender confused" teachers and the "holier than thou" department chairs is so vicious and widespread that we would never succeed without someone standing up to them. All kidding aside, while I appreciate your view and agree with the intent, I am not naive enough to think such teacher don't exist nor delusional enough to think it is nearly as big of a problem as your regular comments would seem to suggest.

    I would rather have my kids know what sex is and not have any questions. I have no problem with a responsible adult, a teacher, contributing and reinforcing what I have already taught my children. If they say something I disagree with, I'll explain that to my kids. Knowledge is never a bad thing. Ignorance, however, sure can create a disaster mighty quick.

  • Jeanie b. Orem, UT
    March 7, 2012 3:12 p.m.

    @ Furry1993

    I do not understand the mentality that young man should carry a condom in case of an "accident". You make it sound like the control we have over our sexual behavior is the same control we have over all the drivers around when crossing the street. It's not the same thing.

    And everyone who is ragging on Utah - back off! While I disagree with the bill, at least the intent recognizes the special nature of human intimacy and rejects the animal nature put forth by society at large.

  • katy salt lake city, ut
    March 7, 2012 4:07 p.m.

    OHBU - Care to enlightens us as how our State ranks against other states that do teach sexual issues in the schools. Is our % of STD's, abortions and sex outside of marriage considerably higher because it is being taught or not taught in the home?

    Also to Rifleman - I think some of his comments are well thought out. Why not give parents a tax break if their children aren't spreading STD's and costing tax payers
    money? I know schools are already teaching biology and having discussions about the human body.

    Someone else mentioned most of how our kids behave sexually is learned from the behavior of their parents. There is much truth in that statement.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    March 7, 2012 4:28 p.m.

    Claudio - "The plague of "gender confused" teachers and the "holier than thou" department chairs is so vicious and widespread that we would never succeed without someone standing up to them"Knowledge is never a bad thing. Ignorance, however, sure can create a disaster mighty quick.

    - After a second review I realize you were kidding but this is what I'm hearing from a lot of these commentors on many threads. They seem literally scared of gays. Santorum stated that liberal professors and the education system are stripping students of their faith and indoctrinating them. He misses the point that he's been indoctrinating his family Catholic their whole life AND that there's a real correlation between education and lack of a belief in God.

    My father is the same way and I always love it. The old-timers are blaming the education system for changing the way youth think today. Well duh! They're getting educated I'd hope they'd change the way they think! Sounds like it's working to me!

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    March 7, 2012 4:45 p.m.

    "atl134

    Salt Lake City, UT
    @Rifleman
    Utah has a higher rate of marriage and the lowest marriage age in the nation, of course they're going to have the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock births."

    President Monson urged young men to get married at last year's 181st Annual General Conference. This is a common theme throughout LDS history. Marrying young and getting sealed is high on the priority list so I can see why Utah has these high marriage rates and low ages. Having a lot of kids is also always a plus although not heavily pushed ... maybe inferred would be a better way to put it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    March 7, 2012 5:12 p.m.

    I suggest we change the title of our members of the House of Representatives and the State Senate to Reverend. The new name should be the House of Reverends or possibly Ministers and the State Religious Ministry.

    Next session I'm wondering if they will see a bill to install camera's in all married households to make sure no one uses birth control. After all, we need to be monitored to be sure we are not allowed anything that won't produce children.

    To the House and Senate... Stay out of my personal life. Let my grandchildren be educated but facts in a classroom and not in the backseat of a car.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    March 8, 2012 1:25 a.m.

    I personally know many parents here in Utah who completely understand some kids will be sexually active no matter what, they just don't want their own kids to be among them.

    Many of these parents truly feel they have no allies in what they are doing. They feel Hollywood is against them when they glance over TV shows and movies portraying sex as fun and exciting with no real consequences.

    They feel groups such as Planned Parenthood are against them, the idea being they are telling kids that virginity is unrealistic and unhealthy and that when it comes to sex, anything goes just so long as they pop a pill or put on a condom.

    They feel the media is against them, portraying these parents as stupid or burying their heads in the sand for telling their kids to wait until marriage or adulthood to have sex.

    So when they parents hear about sex education in the public schools, their immediate thought is, "Here's one more group telling us we can't parent our kids the way we want to."

    If you're pro-sex ed, what do you tell these parents?

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    March 8, 2012 6:00 a.m.

    Claudio writes: "I would rather have my kids know what sex is and not have any questions."

    Then perhaps you should fulfill your responsibility as a parent, get to know your children well enough to talk to them, and then explain what sex is all about to them. As an alternative I suppose you could chose to relinquish your roll as a parent and allow some teacher who may or may not share your opinions on the subject to do your job for you.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 8, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    Flying Finn,

    If you had read my previous comments, I made it rather clear that I believed that parents do have an obligation to talk their kids and should do so long before the teachers get involved. I expressed my desire and belief that the material taught in school should compliment, not substitue the education given by the parents.

    I also stated that by doing so, this would add legitimacy to the instruction given by the parents as being fact and not simply more "rules" imposed by a parent that a teen would be more prone to rebel against as a normal part of adolescence.

    I assume you didn't read my previous comments, so I'll refrain from criticizing you further.

    I can't think of a better topic to showcase how teachers and parents can and should work together in the education of our children. This shouldn't be restricted to sex and I hope it isn't in most households.

  • SageGuy CEDAR CITY, UT
    March 9, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    "Sen. Stuart Reid, R-Ogden, also questioned the role of schools in sex education, saying that he has a problem with what are essentially complete strangers teaching children the most sensitive issues that belong in the home."
    I am involved in my children's education. I know who teaches their classes and I know what is being taught. I've always had a great rapport with my kids' teachers. The current system of teaching sex ed has been ideal for my family, as it offers my wife and I a chance to discuss sexuality and our strong belief in abstinence before marriage in conjunction with what they learn in school. Sen. Reid and his colleagues are selling the children of Utah short. Many families in Utah will not discuss these issues at all, and the schools have done a great job teaching our kids. This whole bill is absurd. It's very telling of the ignorance that is rampant in our state government. I hope voters are taking notice of who "represents" them.

  • Dadof5sons Montesano, WA
    March 9, 2012 8:52 p.m.

    Well When abstinence is used it woks 100 percent of the time every time. No sexual diseases no unwanted pregnancies. It is a complete no brainier. Unless you think all f the above still can happen when nothing when nothing happens.