http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03...ght-to-be-gay/
Printable View
Well Terry, I read the article and it is very controversial. Personnally I don't care to open a discussion on whether or not it is choice or part what someone is born with since I really don't have issues with sexual choices people make.
The only issue I have is simple, I don't as a routine overtly advertise that I am heterosexual, and, therefore I don't see the need for blatant in your face homosexual acts. There is a Gay Pride parade each year, leave it at that.
As such, I guess my position on this is to understand where the line in the sand is. There is, IMO, a necessity to clearly indicate where learning ends and encouragement to 'experiment' begins. Like the author, I don't have issue with natural selection but any policy that serves that fantasy that being gay is a simple care free life choice has to been halted. In the real world there are still countries that will throw you in jail and the last thing we want to see is our children thrown in some foreign jail because they have some rooted belief that homosexuality is universally accepted and without consequence.
Why would anyone choose to be in a group that is persecuted by people that have no clue.
It makes no sense.
What I found interesting about the article is the discussion of agenda driven grooming and promotion of lgbt by some. I have no doubt that sexual orientation is something you were born with. I don't think more or less of gays and agree they have equal rights including the right to marry. Why would we deny them something that makes them happy? What I have been suspect of is this level of interest on sex by this government. When Smitherman was health minister he delisted eye exams yet listed sex changes. Does this reflect on him being gay? Ben Levin's time as a senior education policy maker yielded curriculum that introduces consent with children below the legal age. Interestingly he was convicted last week of being a pedophile. One could interpret the actions if this government as agenda driven quite easily. I just found this article interesting.
Science still doesn't have the definitive answer but it is my belief that instances of choice are rare. I really do believe it is part of what you are born with. Sadly there is intolerance for something that people cannot change any easier than the eye colour...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
My point here is not to question wether it is a choice or genetic trait. I truly don't care either way. My opinion is who you choose is your business not mine. What you do behind closed doors is your business as long as you are acting legaly. I wonder why there is so much emphasis/political capital spent on sex by this government? Would it be the case if the Premier were not gay? Is she using her power to "promote" a lifestyle? Is this an issue that should be consuming so much time when Rome is burning? Or is it a convenient channel changer to mask the smell of smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fohere is1561
And there you have it... I agree Terry this is simply a "bait and switch" to divert public attention from the stinky foul mess that has now become common with this government.
It is grooming the very young to think the Liberal way!
Conservatives are more apt to think in line of the traditional family unit and vote accordingly.
Long range planning on their part to garner support and win elections!
Maybe I am reaching down too deep but there is always a method to the madness.
Probably not a fair comparison but indoctrinating the youth at a very early age works in favour of the governing party. Child soldiers in Somalia, Hitler youth corps,..etc......as extreme examples.
The Premier probably does have some strong interests in issues of sexuality as a homosexual person. I don't think that's a weakness or secret agenda of her or her party. We are still less tolerant of people who are not heterosexual and some people on this forum do demonstrate that from time to time. The reason to promote "gay acceptance", especially at school, is easy for me to understand: I don't know a single young person whom committed suicide because he/she was heterosexual; I do know a few whom have killed themselves because they were gay. The peer pressures at school are hard for just about every kid in some way or another. Gay pride events probably exist in large part for people to celebrate the fact that they made it through those uncomfortable years alive when it was probably hard for them to accept themselves, let alone gain any sort of acceptance from everyone else.
As hunters, you'd think we'd have a little more insight and empathy into what it means to have a lifestyle that isn't entirely socially popular.
lol Hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by impact
Well, my 5 yr old daughter is so far very hetero. Loves her pink, loves her dolls, thinks of families as primarily having moms & dads, talks about who her boyfriends are or will be, etc.
I'll get back to you in 10 yrs or so and let you know if the sex-ed curriculum (that is nearly 100% the same as the one i was educated under) turns her gay.
Fair enough. Thankfully I think our kid's generation is far more accepting. I just don't like the extremism on this issue and admit there is extremism on both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckduckgoose
There are those who I doub't will actually read what I think might be one of the better takes on it, that I've found to date.
I'll just cut to the chase for them
if your interested in reading one mothers well thought out balanced opinion.Quote:
Grade 3
Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriages – I haven’t seen enough information on what exactly this topic will include to say yay or nay for it. There are debates that some believe this will be used to broach what has been labelled the ‘pro-gay’ agenda, which encourages the experimentation of sexual preference to discover what your sexual preference is. If that’s what this topic broaches, then there are two reasons I am against it.
- Kids are only eight years old in the third grade. Encouraging any sort of experimentation at that age is seriously wrong.
- Most people tend to figure out without that whether they like boys or girls. If there’s confusion as to their preference, chances are they are going to figure it out as they get older anyways.
However, if the issue is simply about the fact that there are people who prefer members of the same-sex, and that some kids have a mommy and daddy, some have two mommy’s and some have two daddy’s, I’m fine with that. Regardless of your stance on homosexuality, the fact remains that it exists. Whether you choose to teach your kids that it is right or wrong is your own prerogative. But they still need to know how to act, how to behave appropriately, and how to accept people regardless of how different they are.
This is not an issue at the age of eight that should go in depth. Much like the six year olds aren’t going to comprehend the depth and complexities of sexual consent, neither are these grade 3s going to understand the depth and complexities surrounding gay-marriage. And for those who are toting the ‘Homosexuality is wrong and this is going to corrupt my kids’ spiel, trust me, it’s not. I was quite young when my parents had to explain a bit of it to myself and my siblings, as one of our relatives is gay. It didn’t make us start to question our own preferences, and it certainly didn’t confuse us. We simply accepted it, and to us, having two uncles was a normal thing. (I should also add, they are two insanely amazing uncles, who would have made incredible parents).
Again, like the previous two issues – this isn’t necessarily an issue that should be addressed in a sexual context with children of that age. As an anti-bullying curriculum? Definitely. But as a sexuality issue to eight year olds? Probably not.
http://arbitraryscrawling.com/2015/0...-and-the-cons/
Not a terrible link JBen... but still questionable as to why anyone would/should read it when the author admits she knows nothing about what she's writing about?
The curriculum doesn't teach sexual consent to 6 yr olds - as some have attested it does and to which concerns that author makes a mention. It teaches consent as in ownership of oneself, ie: Only i have the right to say what someone can or can't do to me, be it an innocent game of ball tag or a nefarious approach by a stranger.
And the curriculum does not mention anything about the sexual nature of same-sex marriages to 8 yr olds - as some have attested it does and to which concerns the author makes a mention. It simply addresses that there are many different family structures, all of which are due the same respect under our laws.
I would say that author's piece is anything BUT well thought out. She's still working her way through everything, and just dragging readers along as she does so.
She's
A) A mother, I think that gives her every right and qualification. Odd you seem to discount that, and her opinion counts far more than Ms Wynnes or....
B) Raised in a family where acceptance was the norm given she had "two uncles"
I think that gives her more knowledge and practical first hand experience than...
Imo it is, its very well thought out and articulated. You just don't happen to "agree".
I never said boo about her right or qualification to write whatever she wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
I asked what about it you felt was well thought out, and why anyone would/should read it?
In the first sentence you quoted, she admitted she doesn't know the curriculum, hasn't taken the time to read it to know EXACTLY what will be taught, and when.
Yet somehow we should be enticed to read further? The curriculum - in both abbreviated and full length versions - has been available for 2+ weeks for everyone to digest. If anyone is espousing an opinion, but hasn't read it... i automatically question the validity of paying attention to their comment.
Really?Quote:
Not a terrible link JBen... but still questionable as to why anyone would/should read it when the author admits she knows nothing about what she's writing about?
Being a mother and person who grew up in a family where very young kids....
To each their own M.
And if you read her main "reservations"....
/paraphrase
ages in some cases
lack of parental input/voice (kinda like discounting her opinion)
secretive nature and the way its being rammed down parents throats.
Anywho, carry on
Im "outta" here.
So, since you cannot be bothered to answer an EXTREMELY SIMPLE question (and need to respond to everything like it's an attack on you - chill man, seriously) i guess i'll have to try to make your own interpretation for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
I think... and correct me if i'm wrong... the reason you saw value in her blog was not actually in any of her discussion about the sex-ed curriculum per-se... but more in the fact that she was sharing a personal experience that showed early discussion of different family structures, and simply identifying the fact that "others" exist, does not cause young kids to become gay?
Ahh, i get you now (well, a little clearer at least). So it is her breakdown of the curriculum that you feel is valid or worth reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Well, then again i have to repeat. At the time she wrote it, she had not read the curriculum, had no idea what was actually being covered and ALL of her reservations were actually over non-issues.
For example: She wrote 500+ words about her concern of teaching sexual consent to 6 yr olds. At no point in the curriculum does anyone talk about educating 6 yr old about sexual consent. Consent is only addressed in an "ownership of self" approach.
She's posted a note at the top of the article that says she's now actually reading the document she jumped to conclusions over when she had no idea of which she was speaking. I'd bet $ that after she's done, she'll have no real issue with the curriculum.
Not one person I know who has actually read the curriculum has held onto any of their concerns afterwards.
EDIT TO ADD:
Yup, sure enough, her last update and final paragraph on the matter after educating herself, specifically about the points on which she had reservations:
Quote:
Overall, the curriculum will also focus on abstinence and promoting the idea that they should be waiting until they are older. There is nothing ‘graphic’ in this new curriculum, despite what multiple conservative publications and petitions would have people believe.
To try and keep it to one thread.
Related news (just hitting all the services)
Details are thin but on the surface this is one where I'll actually say
/well done, about time.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ario-1.2984313
M, she is a mother, one with practical first hand experience. And for the most part she's saying "chill" with just a few good "cons" / reservations. Regardless.
The very people perhaps Ms Wynne (and some..maybe you?) should be paying heed to. They are "our" children. Yours, mine, hers. And anyone who understands how minds develop.
And "bs". Ive read it and have my concerns (not very unlike hers). And many of my friends/adults/parents think much the same. Its not necessarily the content.....
On a topic such as this, who are you to say what is/isn't right for "my" children? And before we go there "yeah parents have the right to pull their kids from class"..
Um isn't that
A) unwise given I hope all/most of us can agree it needs to be made "current" and kids today "need" it.
B) Exclusive in nature (the very thing Ms Wynne and others are trying to avoid/stop). Lets not make kids feel different.
C) a bit of a landmine potentially.
Anywho...............
M :)
just saw your "edit"
Quote:
EDIT TO ADD:
]Yup, sure enough, her last update and final paragraph on the matter after educating herself, specifically about the points on which she had reservations:
Overall, the curriculum will also focus on abstinence and promoting the idea that they should be waiting until they are older. There is nothing ‘graphic’ in this new curriculum, despite what multiple conservative publications and petitions would have people believe.
You missed that first time through and after "educating yourself"? :0 I guess so, I didn't.
Has she revised her reservations, added caveats or more addendums. Nope. See "despite my earlier misgivings about a,b,c.. Im all for it"? What's that tell you. That for the most part, relax...but there are some things, namely...
news flash M, despite your feelings on it (which are perfectly ok), many, many parents (underscore, stress, emphasize that word) aren't and think differently.
Deal with that. Its their kids to. The fact it is so controversial, such a "hot topic", is getting sooooo much press, should be an indication that this is not universally or perhaps even widely supported.
yeah some are "dead against", the main sticking points I hear from friends/parents are the ages for a couple things and...the disdain for "us"..they are our kids. Period.
and my last edit because I thought of a way to word it. This isn't a change to math, or English.
Obviously this is very controversial, maybe even a wedge issue. Some on your side of the fence, others firmly on the other and many ( my experience friends/family/colleagues) sort of like myself with variances here and there.Just see all the "fights" on FB....
"Personally" I think the debates are good/healthy because change to the curriculum is needed. But given they are "our" kids, my kids (your kids) and "you" have no right to dictate how they are raised, and the nature of some of the material. This is why public consultation, input parental input........
Perhaps parents should have been.....included (funny that given),
and those that are dead against not labeled homophobes (funny that given) 3
and aired last year, so that maybe some of the things could be "revised", changed a little if a lot of the parents....Or going through it now, and possibly.....
or even part of her election platform if she was so sure parents and most of them would be fully onside?
Like what? The ages things are addressed at? Again, folks only have issue with the ages proposed when they MISINTERPRET what's being taught.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Again, you're just constantly reposting much of the same incorrect propaganda - even though you claim it's not necessarily your opinion. It doesn't help anyone, nor the discussion, to keep posting the same incorrect information about the curriculum, or ill-formed opinions based on that incorrect information.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Parents were NOT consulted en-masse, with public discussions for the last THREE times the curriculum was updated. There was absolutely zero reason for it to happen that way this time. I really don't understand why some parents scream this should be part of the process, when it never has been, and never will be.
Academia would simply never, ever move forward in any subject, if that was the case.
If the past sex-ed curriculum updates had been done in the age of mass information, we would have see the same kind of outcry and misleading propaganda - some people simply don't like change.
However, 4000+ chairs and heads of parent associations for 4000+ Ontario schools WERE consulted, and encouraged to review the program with their various boards and to provide their reports on it. That is a LOT of consultation with individuals, the majority of whom are parents.
That's roughly 12,000 individuals who had a chance to provide their feedback. To put that in perspective, many gov't decisions are based on research including just 1500 people. In this respect, we probably got off lucky the Libs reached out to so many. Other important decisions get a much less balanced look.
I have absolutely no issue with people being against the curriculum - if they're honest about why.
What i have an issue with is when folks post an opinion or make a claim that is completely false by claiming the the curriculum is teaching things it is not, to age groups it is not.
Wynn is full of doo doo. I wasn't consulted in the least and I am a parent. Less that 1% of us were. Therefore parents were NOT CONSULTED in any real manner. That said, I have read and re-read the full document and didn't want to comment on it until I had. There was far too much speculation (almost all politically motivated whether for or against). Now that I have read it, I am fine with 99% of it. I call malarkey on and have real issue with only one aspect of the curriculum: the non-scientific and agenda driven teaching of the numerous different genders. There are not numerous genders and the idea that there is absurd and driven by only one community. The rest of the curriculum is probably long over due and I applaud it. This 7 gender nonsense is a pant load of road apples.
That gave me a good guffaw. It's probably the only part of the curriculum that also has me scratching my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pondo
That entire community hasn't even figured itself out yet... as a result i have to wonder just what we'd be able to teach anybody about it, that could really help anyone, in any way - youth or adult.
Stick to the basics of the curriculum of "everyone is unique, as long as they're obeying the laws and not harming others, respect them all and let them be them".
I agree Oddmott. Stick to the basics, not some pseudo-science. Like it or not (and some won't), we don't teach creationism in public schools either.
Let me see if I understand you correctly M.
For parents who are fine (by and large) with it, see the needs but who question the ages some of it is being introduced or Who question a few other things.
They are uneducated, their opinions are worth trash, they don't know what they are talking about, and yours is the only one that matters and gospel? Can you say "closed minded"?
The whole purposes of public/parental input (and there wasn't a lot) is for those reasons and some others. Pondo just brought up another I guess he to is uneducated and his opinions with respect to his children....
You have some nerve telling one boatload of parents (and from all the hoopla its a lot) what to think, and what is right, or age appropriate for their children. Not sure why that concept is so hard for you.
Basically M
Maybe all you need to do is ask yourself this simple question.
Why was there no word of it in their election platform. For such an "educated" man, Im sure you can figure out why. And as such, what does that tell you?
Haven't said that at all. I've said, and i repeat, that my issue is with those who lie about what the curriculum includes, and the ages the content is taught at, to cling to their propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Every. Single. Person that i've handheld through the curriculum points they're initially concerned about has afterwards said "Oh, well, that's not bad at all. That's not what so-and-so told me it was..."
Last weekend i walked my grandfather-in-law, a past "educator" (i'd say teacher but he claims there's a difference) for 16 years in the 60s and 70s, and an evangelical pastor for over 45 years, through the curriculum point by point. At the end of it his response was "well, that's not as bad as I've been told it is. And i guess this is the world we live in now, we can't pretend same sex relationships or sex diseases don't exist".
What i find funny, is that i've never once heard you complain about the past curriculum - which isn't very different from this one, actually taught a few sensitive topics to kids at YOUNGER ages and *GASP* was developed and introduced with LESS parental input or consultation.
Yet that was the one that affected YOUR kids.
Funny, eh?
M you discounted near most of what that mother said, (once she educated herself, she doesn't know what she is talking about, its not well thought out and more) what I have said, what many Ontarians are saying.
yeah there are those who are lets call it "over reacting". That may be so, they are still parents and still have a voice on a topic like this.
Hence why Ms Wynne didn't mention it during the election
The sex-ed curriculum was last updated in 1998 by the CONSERVATIVES. That update held exactly ZERO MENTION in Harris' election platform. The only education point that made the platform was the elimination of OACs.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
No, i didn't. I read it, realized she'd written from a stance of complete ignorance and then realized that she'd done a complete 180 once she'd familiarized herself with the content on her own, and reviewed it under consultation with teachers.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
All that matters from that article is her end impressions.
Absolutely nothing in her original piece holds any value, except to use it as an example of how/why some parents unfamiliar with the truth, and subject only to the hyperbole were "concerned".Quote:
**Update March 1, 2015 – After reading through the 225 page curriculum and chatting with some friends who are Ontario teachers, here are some of the points of the actual curriculum.
Grade 1 – Teaching of names of body parts (penis, vagina, etc
– Discussions on consent (not specifically in a sexual context) such as saying no to things that make you uncomfortable, bad touch good touch, etc.
Grade 3 – Discussions on awareness about the different types of relationships. There will not be any encouragement to explore sexuality. This is part of an initiative against bullying and harassment.
Grade 4 – I didn’t catch this part in the document (forgive me, it was a LOT of information), but apparently there will not be talk about sexting in Grade 4. This doesn’t come in until Grade 7.).
Grade 6 – Puberty and development (which they already discuss)
– Masturbation. This will not be a discussion on how to, or promoting it – it will be addressed as something that happens, and is natural, and teachers will have guidelines to answer questions about it.
Grade 7 – Sexting and the dangers of it.
– Oral and Anal sex, the dangers surrounding it and STI’s. Again, this will not be an instructional class on how to pursue having oral and anal.
Overall, the curriculum will also focus on abstinence and promoting the idea that they should be waiting until they are older. There is nothing ‘graphic’ in this new curriculum, despite what multiple conservative publications and petitions would have people believe.
Once she read the whole thing and made her final notes at the end, she shows you exactly that all her concerns were nullified.
Yep and some of her concerns are still in place. and that's really for many (lets exclude those who are simply dead against) the main "reservations" if you will.
Ps M, that very last line was one reason I thought to link that one..
At the end of the day, what parents "feel" is right (or not) for their children, whether they are ignorant as you so eloquently put it or not.
is what matters and I defy you say otherwise to any parent, whether they agree or not, Christian/other or not.
There are reasons this was shot down in 2010, why Ms Wynne pulled this out of the hat, with a majority. Some of them may be off ( right word?)...matters not. Its for parents (as that mom mentioned) and do keep in mind M....Not all parents are irresponsible or incapable of talking to their kids...And for those that are "dead against" even if they have religious beliefs, are capable of teaching their children the importance of acceptance and more. Just because one believes it to be a sin, doesn't mean one cant......
That's what discussion and public consultation should have handled.
Can you point me to which of the author's concerns are still in place? Somehow i'm missing them. I've compared the end list to her paragraph points and i'm not seeing them. Maybe i'm just glossing over them due to having reread this too many times now.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
And i've got no problems with parents having concerns, if they're honest about what those concerns are and being honest about what is actually in the curriculum.
I've had folks tell me flat out they hold religious views and simply don't want this stuff addressed at school. I can respect why they feel that way. But, unfortunately for them, religion doesn't dictate education curriculum.
I've had folks tell me that they just don't think 12 and 13 year olds are aware of anal/oral and don't want it mentioned in sex-ed, even in a way that expresses they're just as dangerous as "normal" sex. And whatever... they can believe what they want. They're dead wrong, but they can believe that.
Just more proof that it falls on someone else other than those parents to make sure kids are adequately informed as to the dangers of the world around them.
If we opened up educational curriculum to mass parental review and approval before implementing changes or improving education - we'd never get anywhere because some group will always have some issue and they'll be happy to complain about it for forever.
The conservatives didn't do it, the liberals aren't doing it and you should never, ever expect differently no matter which parties hold power.
Going to close this one before it goes off the rails over the weekend like other discussions on this topic did.
Have a good weekend and remember to set your clocks ahead Saturday night and hopefully you get a chance to enjoy the great outdoors.