LGBTQ sex education
[1] Opponents argue that LGBTQ sex education programs would force a political point of view on students, misuse tax money, and disrespect religious values.
[1] As of 2014, only 5% of middle and high school students in the United States reported receiving "positive discussions of LGBTQ-related topics" within their health classes.
[3][5][6] In a study conducted by Ellis and High in the UK (2004), 384 students were surveyed; they found that 24% had not received instruction in LGBTQ sex issues.
[7] According to research reported by Burston and Hart in 2001, 45% of surveyed students believed that they did not cover LGBT sex education sufficiently in school.
[8] For example, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations provides a sex education program called Our Whole Lives, which includes discussion of sexual orientation and presents homosexuality and heterosexuality as equally valid.
[13] Ellis and High's survey research in 2004 (including 384 students) revealed that 59% of young people who did receive LGBT sex education found it to be ineffective.
[8] According to Formby (2011), even phrasing that subtly casts homosexuality in a negative light can have a detrimental effect on LGBTQ students' experience of sex education.
[3] There have also been issues around teachers feeling free to teach sex education that equally emphasizes both heterosexual and homosexual health information.
[6] This fear is linked to the historical misconnection of homosexuality to molestation in the United States; this supposedly natural linkage has been debunked multiple times.
[8] Classmates can also be non-receptive toward LGBTQ issues in current sex education courses, and students are often hesitant to talk about homosexuality, according to Buston and Hart (2001).
Buston and Hart (2001), Ellis and High (2004), and others have recommended that teachers frame sex education in terms of relationships rather than merely reproduction, which can lead to the exclusion of LGBT students.
[9] Researchers have recommended that teachers in sex education programs avoid framing homosexuality as something that is fundamentally connected to sexually transmitted infections and refrain from practices that are potentially detrimental to LGBTQ students, such as referring to partners as specifically "him" or "her" (better to use the more flexible "they").
According to a study evaluating the effectiveness of an online, interactive sexual education program for LGBT people, all subsections recorded statistically significant improvement of knowledge.
According to the Huffington Post, some supporters claim that failing to include LGBTQ issues in sex education programs will overlook a significant number of students who identify as LGBT;[21] the Center for American Progress (CAP) says that this can cause them to feel marginalized and removed from the lesson because it does not pertain to them.
[3][22] Sanchez (2012) argues that LGBT students are unlikely to reach out to resources that could give them good information on their own, which furthers the need for LGBTQ sex education in schools.
According to the Huffington Post, supporters say that educating young people about LGBTQ individuals could help them have a more positive attitude toward their gay peers.
[21] The Center for American Progress (2013) says that LGBT sex education would therefore reduce common problems LGBTQ students face as a result of negative attitudes; these include mental health issues like depression, the risk of suicide, drug abuse, self-esteem issues, and poorer academic performance due to stress caused by discrimination.
Andreas Gegenfurtner and Markus Gebhardt have shared findings which suggest that tolerance and acceptance toward sexual minorities were reported to be more positive when people are more highly educated and less religious.
A study of Gay/Straight Alliances in Utah found that peer-facilitated discussions concerning the spectrum of sexuality and gender identities benefited both straight and LGBT students.
[26] It exposed them to the reality of relationships outside of the heteronormative images that dominate media (as well as sex education), and even positively impacted all involved students' academic performance.
They say that parents should have control over what their children are exposed to and taught, and allowing public schools to cover LGBT sex education would undermine this right, forcing a particular political view on students.
Furthermore, many opponents of inclusive sex ed programs argue that parents are forced to lose control of what their children learn in school.
[30] Parents and guardians within these families commonly argue that lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender activity is immoral, abnormal, and unnatural.
[31] The Christian Post argued that if schools elect to teach about LGBTQ people while neglecting religious topics, the curriculum would be unfairly balanced.
[29] There have also been concerns that LGBTQ sex education would not be effective because it is difficult for homophobic students to accept homosexuality, which may prevent them from being receptive to the instruction.
[32] Four states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas) mandate pointedly negative messages regarding all LGBT identities, when sex education is provided.
[33] Eight states (the four previously mentioned, Alabama, Arizona, South Carolina, and Utah) prohibit discussion of any topics deemed LGBT-related.
The goals of this new curriculum will be to broaden traditional sex education and include information relating to relationships and a greater understanding of sexuality.
[37] In 2009, the European Committee of Social Rights found several statements in a Croatian mandatory Biology course textbook, including: "Many individuals are prone to sexual relations with persons of the same sex....
[39] One case study has demonstrated that homophobia, racism, coupled with financial hardship and social support were associated with higher exposure to HIV among homosexual men of color.
