Interesting read re: Sex ed

[terrym]

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.

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.

[JBen]

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

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.

1. Kids are only eight years old in the third grade. Encouraging any sort of experimentation at that age is seriously wrong.
2. 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.

if your interested in reading one mothers well thought out balanced opinion.
http://arbitraryscrawling.com/2015/0...-and-the-cons/

[Oddmott]

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.

[JBen]

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".

[Oddmott]

She's
A) A mother, I think that gives her every right and qualification
B) Raised in a family where acceptance was the norm given she had two uncles

I think that gives her more knowledge and practical experience than...

I never said boo about her right or qualification to write whatever she wants.

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.

[JBen]

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?

Really?
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.

[Oddmott]

Really?
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"....

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?

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?

[Oddmott]

Really?
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

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.

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:

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.

[JBen]

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...............

[JBen]

M
just saw your "edit"

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?