Quite obviously, given the historic interest, the public school system must indeed teach the techniques of safe gay sex under a necessity that doesn’t apply to the state school system. But this insistence upon teaching what is clearly going to be of interest to a minority of the school population, well, how far do we take it? Some minority interests must indeed be catered to. It’s not exactly a majority of Englishman who wish to be able to converse, rather than despise, a Frog but there should still be that place in the curriculum for French lessons. It’s entirely possible that we might wish to be able to talk to our future overlords so that’s German language lessons to be provided. We might stop being friends with Poland so plumbing lessons ought to exist somewhere in the system.
So, yes, minority interests should indeed be taught. The thing is, how minority?
A secular group has called for children to be taught about safe homosexual sex in school as part of Scotland’s new LGBTI-inclusive curriculum.
Scotland has become the first country in the world to ensure its education system officially recognises the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community. However, the National Secular Society said that the curriculum would be merely “window dressing” if it did not teach about safe homosexual sex, particularly in religious schools. It said some Catholic schools taught that homosexual acts were “morally wrong or disordered”.
It is interesting, isn’t it?
A reasonable estimate of the number of gay – and in this sense we should include bisexual – men is some 1 to 3% of the population of men. Those higher estimates we sometimes see of 10% and the like are all of those who have ever had a single same sex experience or more. Men are about 50% of the population given the age groups we’re interested in here, that female preponderance rather coming into play at the higher ages where we tend to think promiscuity isn’t going to be quite the thing.
So, the demand is that something that will indeed be important to that 1% or so of the school population should, indeed must, be taught in school. Only 1% as the lesbian population doesn’t have to worry about this in quite the same manner.
What other things of importance to only 1% of the target population should also be taught? Metalwork? Electrical wiring?
Or perhaps we should concentrate a little more on the matters directly at hand – if it all remained at hand we’d not be having this problem in the first place, fnarr, fnarr.
Some 16% of the population of Scotland self-define as Catholic according to the last census. It is indeed a standard part of the Catholic belief system that homosexual acts are “morally wrong or disordered.” No, not that homosexuals are, it’s the acts only. Actually, any sexual acts not between a man married to that specific woman and which are not open the possibility of conception are “morally wrong and disordered” which does indeed markedly reduce the amount of fun going on.
Still, that is part of the belief system of 16% of the population, why shouldn’t that be taught in schools? If those techniques of interest to that 1% are?
OK, so, it’s only about teaching the kids the techniques that will keep them safe then. Not about moral belief systems. We are instead interested only in that some people will be doing these things. We must teach them the safe ways of doing them.
What else is it sexual that has a lifetime prevalence of some 10% among men? And a regular incidence of some 1 to 3% of the male population?
Commercial sex, that’s what. Those are about the right numbers for men who have ever employed a – female – prostitute and who regularly do so. So, do we teach them safe sex in school? If you do decide to use a prostitute you should/must do so in this manner? If not, why not?
Note that we’ve already excluded any moral reasoning as to why to do so or why not to do so. These people over here might think that homosexual sex is wrong but you might do it so we’re going to teach you how not to pick up some disgusting disease if you do. These people over here might think that commercial sex is wrong but you might do it so we’re going to teach you how not to pick up some disgusting disease if you do.
Yes, obviously, it’s possible to see the difference in the statements. But what’s the difference in them which is applicable to the decision of what children are taught in school? Other than current fashion that is?
Yes, obviously, there’s an absurdam element here. Yet there’s still an important point. Which 1% interests must we make room for in the school curriculum? And if one of those is about, with no moral judgement issues clouding our consideration, the sex some of the lads are going to get up to later on then why isn’t it also about the sex some of the lads will get up to later on?