Coaches coach. And, in teaching sex education, that's what our teachers are doing. A good coach tells the player what he wants him or her to do, and helps him or her envision the player he or she can become.
If you want the youth to steer clear of sex before marriage, you teach that. You teach abstinence. If you want them to want them to not have sex outside of marriage, you teach that, too.
Teaching morality should not be a crime. Thankfully, Utah's law sees this. It says instruction shall stress "the importance of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage and fidelity after marriage . . ."
I like that. I do wonder if they should knock out the next few words, ". . . as methods for preventing certain communicable diseases." Is steering clear of sexually transmitted diseases to be the only reason for staying moral? I'm hoping it is quite alright to teach morality for morality's sake. Yes, teach that communicable diseases can come from indiscriminate activity, but let rightness and morality -- and even righteousness -- be at least among the reasons for not having sex outside of marriage.
And, do teach the other reasons for being moral, like that it will make the marriage stronger if the partners do not have affairs. Teaching that they should not have sex outside of marriage is a good thing, but also teach that to even go out with another person, once you are married, it wrong.
Coaches teach their players what they want them to do. If we do not want our children to become people who have sex outside of marriage, we should teach that.
And, we should be allowed to teach that, free to teach it. It should not be illegal to teach children to be moral. If sex is to be taught, the perimeters of its use should be taught. If it is good to stay within those perimeters, why would we not teach that? If we want the youth to cherish marriage, and cherish chastity, why would we not teach that marriage and chastity are things to cherish?
Don't just teach what sex is. Teach when it is right and when it is wrong
Coaches cannot expect their players to become any better than what they teach them. Coaches coach, so let's coach them.
Our current system allows school districts to offer sex ed if the districts so choose to do so. I wonder, of the districts teaching sex ed, do they teach such things as that love between an man and a woman is simply a beautiful thing, and that it will make the marriage stronger? Maybe such things are taught, but maybe they are considered taboo. I haven't been told and haven't sat in one of the classes to know.
Now, truth be told, isn't one of the reasons for chastity and morality simply that God says such things are right. He even makes it a commandment that we live chaste lives, and that is one of the reasons for remaining chaste.
Yes, it is not only one of the reasons, but probably the biggest reason. But we can't teach that? Can we teach the truth or is it to be taboo? We should be able to teach the whole of the matter, reasons and all.
Here's how we can do it, in a way that should make no one mad: Use the opt-out/opt-in approach. You know, the same one we already have in place for some of the things that are taught. Let the opt-out or in approach also be used here. Let the parents decide if their children will be in a track that teaches them that God commands them to be chaste, just the same as parents can dictate whether the child learns about contraceptives.
The opt-in/opt out idea is not the answer, though, to deciding everything that should be taught in Sex ed. What about teaching the youth what things are inappropriate things for adults to be doing to them, sexual abuses. Should we be teaching that it is wrong for adults to touch them in certain places? Should we be teaching them to recognize if they are being abused? If so, that would be one of the topics parents should not have an opt in or out choice.
And, parents should not have an opt in or out on teaching about communicable diseases. That is a danger they should be taught, period.
No comments:
Post a Comment