22 April, 2010

National Post editorial board: Explicit sex education program planned for Ontario - Full Comment

National Post editorial board: Explicit sex education program planned for Ontario - Full Comment
Posted by at

15 comments:

  1. it is the parent's responsibility to teach "the facts of life" to their children and not the school's. Parents know when and what information each of their children are ready to process. ...just being in a specific grade is not the criteria for this subject.

    ReplyDelete

  2. This is the final straw. The Church, parents and our school boards needs to stand firmly against this insanity and stop it at all costs. I for one will pull my kids from classes if this craziness goes ahead.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete

  3. Hi Mary and Paul,

    As you are both aware, information about sex and sexuiality are already widely available to our children. Our culture is saturated with such information (some of which is harmful, misleading or incorrect).

    It only makes perfect sense that our children are provided with age appropriate and accurate information about sex and sexuality in the schools.

    It is a red herring to pretend that this issue is about parental rights. Parents still have a duty to impart moral lessons and techings to their children on a whole host of topics.

    I suspect that the real motives for some opponents of this initiative are towfold:

    a) They want to teach intolerance and hate to their children with respect to sexual minorities (i.e. the "gays"). Balanced and credible information from the schools may undermine their efforts in this regard;
    b) They want to keep children ignorant and fearful about sex and sexuality in a misguided effort to control children's behaviour.

    Motive a) is illegitimate and motive b) is futile and foolish.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete

  4. I'm firmly with Martin on this!

    It might very well be the responsibility of the parents, but they are not living up to it! In droves! That's why there are teenage pregnancies and abortions and stds.

    Offspring follow the urges of their biology. They do not listen to voices that tell them, "no" when their bodies are screaming at them, "YES!" They can get away from the voices, but they live in their bodies. And it's simply not possible to ignore sexual urges any more than you can ignore a full bladder.

    Responsible parents will teach their children about healthy and responsible sexuality from birth. Sadly, there are not many of those around. Happily for me, I know a lot of them, and I know that I won't be spending any time worrying that my friends' kids will be coming home with a case of the clap or a pregnancy or the after effects of an abortion, whatever those may be.

    If parent's won't do it, the government -- which has a vested interest in your children's health and safety (future war fodder and taxpayers) -- must; and the schools are owned and run by governments. So if you're a parent who objects to the teaching of sexual health and responsibility in schools, you have only yourself to blame.

    ReplyDelete

  5. Martin...
    I suspect that the argument you put forward could just as easily be turned on you.

    To whit: Your stated objections are red herrings which conceal other less laudable motives for your position.

    What you have done is dismiss the stated reasons as lies and proceeded to set up two straw men which can be demolished easily. This is roughly the same as saying "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from the state's power."

    ReplyDelete

  6. Hi Mary and Paul,

    It seems Mr. McGuinty has caved in to pressure to keep children ignorant, fearful and intolerant. Read more here:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mcguinty-to-shelve-sex-ed-plan/article1543479/

    I guess you can keep your powder dry for the moment.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete

  7. Hi Freyr,

    Hmmmm...no. I have clearly stated why sex education is a good thing. You offer no counter-argument as to why it is not.

    I have also stated my suspcision as to the real motives of those who oppose sex education. You are free to disagree, but in so doing, you in no way advance a cogent argument against my primary point.

    Lastly, care to tell us what are "less laudable motives for my position"? Seems you are trying to poison the well by stealth.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete

  8. Martin...
    As for a counter argument, let me at least state the guiding principle.
    "It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry." (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79)

    The task of the state is to assist and facilitate parents in carrying out their responsibilities. The state should never seek to replace parents, who have the prime responsibility for their children's upbringing.

    There is room for some flexibility here but unfortunately the state cannot seem to function without behaving like a bull in a china shop.

    As for your "less laudable motives"... they were invented out of whole cloth... as were the "real motives for some opponents of this initiative" you mentioned above.

    ReplyDelete

  9. Martin: In reading the objections of many Catholic sites, it seems that the objection was not with the concept of sex education, but it questioned the 'age appropriateness' of when certain information was presented.

    As an old social worker, I can understand at least part of the objection. Latency aged children are universally not interested or active in sexual issues. This seems to be the point of contention.

    I have not seen the new program and I do not know what was presented in each grade, but I'm not so certain as you that the opposition was homophobic, although there can be no doubt that clearly this was the motivation for some.

    Good to see you around again!

    Tim

    ReplyDelete

  10. "Latency aged children are universally not interested or active in sexual issues. This seems to be the point of contention."

    That may be true, and if it is, then that's precisely the time to teach it! Waiting until they are interested is way too late!

    ReplyDelete

  11. Lady Janus,

    The Reformed churches believe to a large extent to send their children to private christian schools. I am not sure if they are compelled by provincial education ministry to teach sex education. They might be. But I think christians object to much of this being taught because it is not taught from a christian perspective. Because of widespread sex outside of marriage known to occur among many young people, the sex ed course starts from the assumption that almost everybody is doing it or going to do it. This is one of the problems. And so the public school idea is to teach them to do it as safely as possible and as you mentioned avoid STDs and pregnancy.

    Therein lies the conundrum. How does an education system teach them that they should abstain until married and at the same time protect them from the consequences of sex outside marriage? Having people teach them who are not committed to the christian concept also may contribute to the problem and lead many parents to be suspicious as to what their kids are being taught.

    ReplyDelete

  12. a) They want to teach intolerance and hate to their children with respect to sexual minorities (i.e. the "gays"). Balanced and credible information from the schools may undermine their efforts in this regard;

    Why must you guys always draw the hate card? Do you automatically hate people that do things you don't morally approve of? I didn't think so. Neither do I.
    I certainly don't teach my children to hate gays but I'm clear with them that gay sex is unnatural and immoral but God loves them just the same as he does all sinners and we are called to do the likewise.
    I agree with your last observation though I'd likely disagree with you what constitutes "balanced and credible" information. This is an attempt by government and special interest groups to undermine parental authority and indoctrinate young children with a secular agenda. How often do we hear people crying about separation of Church and state. Thats a two way street, and forcing Catholic school kids to sit through a primer on the joys of sodomy is a violation of that principle.


    b) They want to keep children ignorant and fearful about sex and sexuality in a misguided effort to control children's behaviour.

    Yes I do want to keep my children "ignorant" of gay sex, straight sex monkey sex...all through those years when they should be building tree forts and skinning their knees playing baseball. When teachers should be teaching my kids multiplication, not masturbation.
    If by fearful you mean, afraid to have sex as children and teens for fear of the consequences, I'm not seeing that as a bad thing. Theres lots to be afraid of as the continued on slot of abortions, teen pregnancies and growing STD infections attest, this despite 40 years of ever expanding sex education, dropping the bar lower and lower to the point of stupidity its reached now.
    Feel free to raise your own children with the Liberal book of values but don't mind me if our family takes a pass.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete

  13. "But I think christians object to much of this being taught because it is not taught from a christian perspective."

    There is no religious perspective to sex education, so it's not possible to teach it from a religious perspective. Any religion. It is biology, plain and simple; and that crosses all religious boundaries, whether you like it or not.

    "Because of widespread sex outside of marriage known to occur among many young people..."

    The only people who have problems in that area are those people who do not properly and thoroughly teach their children about sex before it catches them off guard. "Marriage" may be the boundary for you, but it's not the boundary for everyone. Do try to remember that you live in a multicultural world, eh? If you cannot bring yourself to live comfortably with the cultures of other citizens, then have the basic courtesy to leave them alone and stop trying to interfere in their lives!

    "...the sex ed course starts from the assumption that almost everybody is doing it or going to do it."

    That's the truth. Why do you have such a problem with truth? I thought you were all about truth?

    "...the public school idea is to teach them to do it as safely as possible and as you mentioned avoid STDs and pregnancy."

    Would you rather your daughter come home pregnant or formerly pregnant? Would you rather your son were diagnosed with syphillis or AIDS? By keeping them ignorant and unsafe, you are also forcing them to sneak around behind your back and do what they are biologically engineered to do whether you like it or not.

    The health and safety of its younger citizens is of paramount concern to the government -- future taxpayers and cannon fodder, after all. And if parents will not teach them to be safe and healthy, then the government must.

    "How does an education system teach them that they should abstain until married and at the same time protect them from the consequences of sex outside marriage?"

    It doesn't. "Waiting until marriage" is a religious concept, and a narrow one at that. Not all religions require it, or even encourage it. Mine doesn't. And government does not teach religion and religious mores -- that's the job of your religions teachers and the parents.

    If the government ever tried to teach religious "values" in a classroom, it would have to teach all religious values; and some of them are absolutely opposite one another! Can you imagine the mess that would make of your "truth?"

    ReplyDelete

  14. "Why must you guys always draw the hate card?"

    Calling people nasty names and tagging them with odious labels is a pretty clear indication of hate, and you do that all the time! Don't bitch about what you started!

    "...I'm clear with them that gay sex is unnatural and immoral..."

    It's neither, actually. Every animal species on earth has about the same percentage of homosexual activity as humans do. You claim your god made everything, so he must have made homosexuality, and here you are, sneering openly at one of his "gifts." Aren't you expecting to be struck by lightning sometime soon for that?

    And "morality" is completely subjective, limited only to those who believe in such a concept.

    "...continued on slot of abortions..."

    Took me a minute or so to realize you meant "onslaught." You're welcome.

    And while you're looking up your favorite statistics, why don't you look up the locations of the majority of teen pregnancies, abortions, and stds? I'll give you a hint: they're all in Bible Belt zones -- those places where children are taught nothing of sexual health and safety, and are simply told to "wait until marriage." Of course, they don't wait. Go ahead, look it up.

    ReplyDelete

  15. Lady Janus

    I agree with you 100%.
    I definitely messed up spelling onslaught.

    Thanks
    Paul

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

About Fr. Tim

My Photo
A Roman Catholic Evangelical Priest of the Diocese of Pembroke, Canada. Shown in my profile photo with my canine companion, Mateo.

Followers of this blog:

Visitors to this page

Locations of visitors to this page

Blog Archive

Google Analytics