No he’s not talking about sex ed, and basic conversations of biology. Which of course need to be taught.
It's not obvious that sex ed needs to be taught in school, and the religious right in retrospect was quite correct in the 80s when they predicted it would lead to teaching children about condom usage, gay sex, and fetishes (the existence of which are basic facts about sex and biology, putting aside moral arguments for or against them).
It's also a basic fact of biology/anthropology that humans tend to segregate themselves into tribes and along racial/ethic lines and treat each members of other tribes, races, and ethnicities with suspicion and hostility. And that some humans have more aggressive tendencies and are more likely to commit rape and murder. Do we teach children those things in a "neutral" context, or do we preface those discussions with "and these things are all bad, so don't do them"
It is simply not possible to decouple education from a particular moral context. And the decision to include or exclude "basic conversations" on particular topics is itself a decision to some extent driven by morals and values, given the practically unlimited "basic conversations" that are possible and the limited time there is to teach them.
it would lead to teaching children about condom usage
Preventing kids from getting pregnancies/STDs seems pretty reasonable to me. Most people lose their virginity at 15/16, some even at 12/13, better to teach them how to do it safer make sense- the problem is some places refuse to teach abstinence which is as retarded as abstinence-only sex ed.
Preventing kids from getting pregnancies/STDs seems pretty reasonable to me
If you're Catholic, you probably don't want your children to be taught that their usage is an acceptable and reasonable alternative to abstinence when your religion says you shouldn't use them.
It's not obvious that sex ed needs to be taught in school, and the religious right in retrospect was quite correct in the 80s when they predicted it would lead to teaching children about condom usage, gay sex, and fetishes (the existence of which are basic facts about sex and biology, putting aside moral arguments for or against them).
It's also a basic fact of biology/anthropology that humans tend to segregate themselves into tribes and along racial/ethic lines and treat each members of other tribes, races, and ethnicities with suspicion and hostility. And that some humans have more aggressive tendencies and are more likely to commit rape and murder. Do we teach children those things in a "neutral" context, or do we preface those discussions with "and these things are all bad, so don't do them"
It is simply not possible to decouple education from a particular moral context. And the decision to include or exclude "basic conversations" on particular topics is itself a decision to some extent driven by morals and values, given the practically unlimited "basic conversations" that are possible and the limited time there is to teach them.
Preventing kids from getting pregnancies/STDs seems pretty reasonable to me. Most people lose their virginity at 15/16, some even at 12/13, better to teach them how to do it safer make sense- the problem is some places refuse to teach abstinence which is as retarded as abstinence-only sex ed.
If you're Catholic, you probably don't want your children to be taught that their usage is an acceptable and reasonable alternative to abstinence when your religion says you shouldn't use them.