Sex Ed taught in Grade1 now!

[lukin]

Personal thoughts here:

People sell kids short by a country mile. A good friend of mine once told me, "I'd like to own guns, but I won't, because I know, regardless of how secure a storage system I buy, my kids will find a way in, even if I can't break in myself." One of the brightest guys I know.

It's like there's some sort of line one crosses, when turning 25, they forget every aspect of the last 25 years. When I was 12, we were having sex. We knew exactly what AIDS & other STD's were, we knew what teen pregnancy was, we knew exactlywhat we were doing stealing beer out of people's garages, and what the consequences were.

Now with the way the internet is, and facebook, etc, I strongly believe that things have progressed even more in this direction. I attended 15 minutes of a single sex ed class, and never went back to any others, such a waste of time it was.

It amazes me, in debates such as this, that nobody considers what sort of reception will be had. The curriculum is written to an agenda, not to a reality. It's almost like nobody wants to get involved.

It's a personal opinion, not trying to sell it, but I will say that it's no surprise that public school enrollment is plummeting provincially where I live, and homeschooling and private are skyrocketing. I would be in a state of shock if that wasn't the case across the nation.

Good post. Public schools are becoming more of a joke every year. I wish more parents would wake up and realize that learning how to read, write is not a priority in public schools.

Teaching kids sex-ed, and that humans are killing polar bears by driving their vehicles has taken over.

[lukin]

That's funny. You're arguing whether it's their right - but it's their job. They're supposed to teach those things.

No, they are supposed to teach my kids to read, write, do math, and have basic knowledge of the world.

[Smallc]

and have basic knowledge of the world.

And that doesn't include the human body, and human sexuality?

[lukin]

And that doesn't include the human body, and human sexuality?

Smallc, i have no problem with kids learning human anatomy, as I mentioned in an earlier post. I have a problem with kids learning about anal and oral sex, among other sensitive topics.

Would you be OK if a teacher told your 12 year old that anal sex is Ok if you use a condom?

Edited April 22, 2010 by lukin

[Michael Hardner]

Like you, I tend to be more skeptical and "scientific" in my thinking. I just feel a bit uncomfortable with the word "anecdotal" being used too easily and often as an alibi or an excuse.

How about somebody who plows onto the board brandishing his prejudices without any embarrassment ? Is that reason enough to not trust his anecdotes ?

[Michael Hardner]

No, they are supposed to teach my kids to read, write, do math, and have basic knowledge of the world.

They're supposed to do what their employer tells them, not what you say. Thank goodness.

[lukin]

They're supposed to do what their employer tells them, not what you say. Thank goodness.

You seem upset that I want my kids to learn to read and write. Shame on me for wanting what's best for my kids.

Your comment of me coming on here brandishing my "prejudices" is exactly what I have come to expect from a liberal like you. You preach tolerance until someone disagrees with you. That game is getting old. YOUR way isn't everyone's way. Thank goodness.

Edited April 22, 2010 by lukin

[lukin]

They're supposed to do what their employer tells them, not what you say. Thank goodness.

You don't know how things work. It's people in the government with agendas who tell teachers what to do.

[lukin]

Actually, today McGuinty backed down on this controversial sex-ed curriculum. Good job to the tax-payers who fund public education for speaking up against this curriculum.

[Michael Hardner]

You seem upset that I want my kids to learn to read and write. Shame on me for wanting what's best for my kids.

No. I'm not upset, but rather I'm tired of the 'lone gunman' type such as yourself who comes onto the board guns-a-blazin.

Your comment of me coming on here brandishing my "prejudices" is exactly what I have come to expect from a liberal like you. You preach tolerance until someone disagrees with you. That game is getting old. YOUR way isn't everyone's way. Thank goodness.

It's pretty much everyone's way, thank goodness.

[Michael Hardner]

You don't know how things work. It's people in the government with agendas who tell teachers what to do.

Really ? What happened to 'teachers don't have the right' ?

Anyway, this whole thing blew up because of a Family Group (that's the agenda) and a Premier who likes to be gutless.

Now we know.

Gays aren't going anywhere, nor are gay parents who are rightly demanding that they are acknowledged in a curriculum that reflects post-Eisenhower society. I don't underestimate the power of a committed special interest minority like this (look what they've achieved already) but eventually they will die out... just like the preacher who kept booze out of west Toronto for so-many-years.

RIP.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, today McGuinty backed down on this controversial sex-ed curriculum. Good job to the tax-payers who fund public education for speaking up against this curriculum.

Yes, McGuinty is quick to react to pressure and is truly a politician without any courage who follows the blowing wind. Glad you like him, though.

[RB]

Actually, today McGuinty backed down on this controversial sex-ed curriculum. Good job to the tax-payers who fund public education for speaking up against this curriculum.

Well good.

[Michael Hardner]

In the school I was at, we had more teenage pregnancies after extensive sex education than before.

Why would this happen ? At which school were you "at" ? When were you at it ? I'm so unconvinced of this that I want to look up the statistics.

[Michael Hardner]

Well good.

Another Dalton supporter. I guess the good thing about a jellyfish premier is that everybody can get behind him at least some of the time.

[Handsome Rob]

Gays aren't going anywhere,

Agreed.

nor are gay parents who are rightly demanding that they are acknowledged in a curriculum that reflects post-Eisenhower society. I don't underestimate the power of a committed special interest minority like this (look what they've achieved already) but eventually they will die out...

Why though? Why does one need to have a special interest to be included? What makes this a right?

Has anybody ever thought about the adversity that such lobbying generates? When they read 'the gay book' at school, what sort of ribbing & bullying is the gay kid in the class going to be subjected to?

Why can we not just have a curriculum that has no agenda to keep things out, nor in, and such things are included because they have a rightful place for all to agree on?

[Wild Bill]

How about somebody who plows onto the board brandishing his prejudices without any embarrassment ? Is that reason enough to not trust his anecdotes ?

We have to consider every premise on its own merits! Just because someone appears to have character flaws doesn't have anything to do with the fact that once in a while his premise might have some validity.

Do you really believe that a prejudiced or bigoted person can never be right in ANY area with ANY premise?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

Although I will grant you that some folks are so far out there or are such simple trolls that they aren't worth the effort. Still, that's a reason to ignore them, not attack them. Attacking them for their character is simple ad hominem and is totally irrelevant to the truth of their premises.

[Oleg Bach]

Why encourage,instigate,suggest any of this crap to the innocent mind? Put it this way..the gayish bunch along with the supporters who just love the disolving of power that is family...will cringe at what I am about to say...IF a child never heard the term "cock sucker" they would never come up with the idea on their own..the normal natuarl kid would say...I pee out of that thing.....and not consider the idea...along with anal sex - a stupid term because it is NOT sex - it is something else..the kid would never dream of sticking his thing in a place where there is poop.

SURE there is kink but that is an adult issue...or some sort of perverse pleasure...this idea about teaching children things they would not naturally create or imagine amounts to a type of nasty adult vacariousness that boarders on sexual interference. They go on and on about homosexuality being natural and in nature...give me one example other than a strange imaginative human mammal that sticks his penis into a place where toxic waste exits? There is no such creature other than man..and it is a taught or suggested behavior.

Do we really need an increase in gayness and a decrease in traditional family values that empower people? Or do we need to lead those that are curious children down the path of gayness? Really - look at all the twenty year old men that flood the streets all gayified..where did they suddenly come from? Don't tell me that some are not created by this subtle indoctrination...some social engineer is pushing this stuff _ BUT not for their family or children..this is about further disempowerment and enslavement of the population.

[capricorn]

What this boils down to in my mind is that Dalton and company don't think parents are equipped to provide the necessary sex ed required by their kids to thrive in what has become a highly sexualized society. Categorize me in the camp that would like to see kids be kids until about the age of twelve. Whatever happened to the days of "show me yours and I'll show you mine" when kids developed at their own pace where normal curiosity was brought on by the stirrings of natural hormones? As I recall in my youth, this did not result in higher pregnancy rates or STDs than we have today.

I do believe there is a role for the education system to complement whatever parents teach their children and what they learn on their own through innocent exploration. But is there a limit to how far this sex ed should go? I think there is a limit which should be determined by the age of students.

What I questioned about Dalton's plan is that inevitably the procreation aspect of sex would form part of the curriculum and. it would be necessary to introduce kids to homosexual unions and instruct them on sexual activity that don't result in pregnancy. To be blunt, that would require descriptions of what those sexual activities consist of. That's where anal sex and cunnilingus would have to be explored, and safe ways to engage in those activities. This would be the only way to address any confusion on the part of students that would inevitably crop up. I seriously question whether they're ready for such explicit discussions before the age of twelve.

Anyhow, Dalton's plan to enlighten Ontario's younger students on the finer points of sex and the myriad of acceptable societal unions, and protection from pregnancy and STDs has been shelved for now. This does not mean the public's dialogue on this issue should abate. In fact, this should be grasped as an opportunity to assess what Ontarians want from their education system. Whether we'll take the time to engage is another matter.

[Oleg Bach]

CONTINUED: If the populace is a herd of human resourse..which is superiour? Is it the breeding stock or the sterile stock? What is being offered children here is the idea that we are all equal. Human beings are not all equal. SOME are bright and some are stupid. To offer debasement as an option to children before they are fully developed and knowledgeable is a travesty. To a great degree this topic is one of choice...BUT why offer a child ten kinds of cereal for breakfast..when you know what is the best one for them and you..YOU do not grant choice or any form of important decision making to a child...It seems that the state is now ready to decide for us all.

FAMILY and the united man and woman are the source of all social, spiritual and economic power...all men should be kings and woman queens and their children heirs to the inheritance of privledge...it seems very clear that some one up there sitting and attempting to influence what are still mere infants has an agenda - one of disempowerment and a type of socialization that puts us lower than pigs...No way in heaven or hell is some one going to have authorship over my body and what off spring spring forth from it - my kids are my property and not the states or some powerful man that sits in a damned office tower treating us like his own private ant farm.

[wyly]

You or some teacher has no right to tell me when my kids need sex-ed.

ya they do, it's called biology it's a science...if you don't like it go to a private school or move to the US where ignorance has become a science in it's school systems...

In the school I was at, we had more teenage pregnancies after extensive sex education than before.

BS

I don't need some stats from some liberal rag to tell me what rates are around the world. I saw firsthand the effects of sex-ed in a school. Have you had that experience?

government statistics around the world are available everywhere on the web are you claiming the USA is deliberately inventing an issue as is the UK? are you claiming it's global conspiracy to introduce sex-ed into Ontario??? what a pathetic teacher you must have been "no students you don't need to do any research I'll supply you with all the facts I believe to be true"

Research will prove only what the researcher wants to be proved, or what they are paid to prove. I learned a long time ago that statistics are always skewed. Maybe someday you'll realize that, instead of believing everything you read.

a teacher denying the worth of research, they allowed you to teach?... I call Bull shit with an attitude like that you were never a teacher...

[Oleg Bach]

A teen ager giving birth is a far better thing than to waste a life generating no life and going on an endless quest of pleasure and selfish hedonism...rather have a pregnant daughter at 16 or have a son who is a father early then see them gay...few are genetically predisposed to uncontrolable gayness...back in the 50s children experimented ..the difference was they moved on and matured - no state gave them the green light to be peter pans for ever.

[wyly]

Why though? Why does one need to have a special interest to be included? What makes this a right?

they're a normal part of our society why should they be excluded?

Has anybody ever thought about the adversity that such lobbying generates? When they read 'the gay book' at school, what sort of ribbing & bullying is the gay kid in the class going to be subjected to?

ribbing and bullying gay kids is what needs to be eliminated obviously ignoring the issues keeping things as they are hasn't worked, address it early before the ribbing and bullying begins

Why can we not just have a curriculum that has no agenda to keep things out, nor in, and such things are included because they have a rightful place for all to agree on?

for who to agree on? the average parents isn't qualified..

[Handsome Rob]

they're a normal part of our society why should they be excluded?

They shouldn't. It was in no way insinuated in the post.

ribbing and bullying gay kids is what needs to be eliminated obviously ignoring the issues keeping things as they are hasn't worked, address it early before the ribbing and bullying begins

What significant evidence can you produce of this.

for who to agree on? the average parents isn't qualified..

The only person to judge is the parents themselves. They're their kids after-all, not the state's.

[wyly]

They shouldn't. It was in no way insinuated in the post.

Why does one need to have a special interest to be included? that's the way it reads if something is not to be included then it is excluded... if it's not what you meant explain it better...

What significant evidence can you produce of this.

they were getting beaten and mocked when I was a kid(and that was a long time ago) and they're still being abused now...so how do you figure doing nothing different will suddenly improve their situation?..

The only person to judge is the parents themselves. They're their kids after-all, not the state's.

no parents are legal guardians, parents do not own their kids...abuse those kids and the state will remove them from the guardians/parents care...