Playing the old morality song.http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/219596/group/Opinion/
Linda Thorson, Edinburg, N.D., letter: Session at teachers’ conference steps over line
By: Linda Thorson,
EDINBURG, N.D. — Children are sent to school for education, not a promotion of promiscuous lifestyles.
Workshops for teachers promoted by the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction need to tell the whole truth about student health and safety. A spokesperson on the radio the other day said that the department supports abstinence instruction. But my concern is that this message never gets to the students.
Teachers are not providing the education students need when deviant sexual behavior is accepted and even promoted. How many parents knew about the 2009 North Dakota Risk Behavior Survey, in which students apparently were questioned about their sexual preferences?
I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that the survey
you mention was anonymous and used to track many things. If you think "deviant" behavior is a risk, shouldn't it be on the survey?
Rather than use class time to ask students about their sexual desires, teachers need to instruct students that the best and most healthy lifestyle includes abstaining from sex until marriage.
Again: survey, not teachers questioning students about their preferences in front of other students. Second, please cite sources that support your stance that abstinence before marriage is the "best and most healthy lifestyle."
We are told the survey was done to collect data. But why not use the data that’s all around us? This “data” shows how our parents and grandparents succeeded as adults: They were encouraged to live moral lives and not to pursue pleasure above all else.
Your "data" are anecdotal. Please cite something with a little more weight. Second, if being "deviant" is "pleasurable," why is it necessarily a bad thing?
In a recent news story, a spokesperson said the department had received emails and phone calls criticizing a session at the North Dakota Education Association conference. As a result, the session’s name seems to have been changed, so that “Leading a Safe School Climate for LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transvestite and Questioning)” became “Leading a Safe Climate for All Students.”
Did the information change? Or is the department going against the philosophy of the majority of parents?
I'm rather disappointed in the session leaders for changing the name of the session. The new title contains little information. Second, how does a change in session name mean that the department is "going against the philosophy" of anyone? It seems rather that they caved to bad press rather than changing anything substantial.
By the way, why did the session’s original name include “questioning”? The use of that word in the title implies that it isn’t just calling for acceptance; it’s also encouraging students to question. This is opposite of the very thing the department says it stands for, which is abstinence.
"Questioning" refers to the act of being unsure about one's sexual orientation. Contrary to your statement, this doesn't imply promiscuity or "deviantness" on anyone's part; you can easily question your orientation without engaging in any sexual acts. Sometimes I question whether or not I should write letters to the editor, which doesn't mean that I write a bunch of letters to try it out. Please also cite where the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction says they only support abstinence education.
Also, exactly who is supposed to answer the “questioning” student’s questions?
Anyone they want to talk to about their questions. Often this is someone they know well and trust. If parents were less denouncing of lifestyles that don't jive with their personal philosophies, students might actually talk to their parents instead of finding a teacher who is obviously more open to "deviant" behavior.
This topic is not suitable for the classroom, especially because the department seems unwilling to give instructors the truth. And the truth is that the pursuit of any sexual activity outside of a moral boundary not only is unhealthy but also can result in a lifetime of misery and disease.
I'm pretty certain that a) your definition of morality is different from that of many other people, if only in specific details. What's good for you might be scandalous to your pastor or your neighbor, or "deviant" to your best friend, and b) that people who don't practice "deviant" behavior are also subject to misery and disease. Why get your daughter vaccinated for HPV if she's going to be abstinent until marriage and only have sex with men? Because straight people can get HPV (and AIDS) too.
Sexual activity outside of marriage is only good for an organization such as Planned Parenthood. The ties between Planned Parenthood and the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction have come to light more than once.
Non-sequitur. I'd suggest writing your letters about either "deviant" sexual behavior or pre-marital sex, and not trying to conflate the two.