Gay-Straight Alliance Club

[betsy]

Back to the Gay-Straight Alliance issue, here are the two sides of the argument:

 

Quote

 

The Justice Centre argues that keeping parents out of the loop violates charter rights including freedom of religion and expression. It calls gay-straight alliances "ideological sexual clubs" that make graphic information on gay sex available.

Two of the parents who signed the complaint say their autistic teenage daughter joined a gay-straight alliance and was convinced to dress and act like a boy at school. The challenge says the girl became suicidal before her parents learned of "confusing influences" at school.

 

 

The Alberta government and others have argued that schools shouldn't inform parents if their children join the peer groups because there is the potential to "out" the students to guardians who may not be accepting. 

Gay-straight alliances are peer support networks organized by students meant to help gay kids feel welcome and to prevent bullying or abuse. Carpenter said LGBTQ students are particularly vulnerable to bullying, disrespect and abuse and have a suicide rate that's markedly higher than their peers.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/schools-parents-dispute-alberta-gay-straight-alliance-law-1.3980920

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

9 minutes ago, betsy said:

Back to the Gay-Straight Alliance issue, here are the two sides of the argument:

 

Quote

 

The Justice Centre argues that keeping parents out of the loop violates charter rights including freedom of religion and expression. It calls gay-straight alliances "ideological sexual clubs" that make graphic information on gay sex available.

Two of the parents who signed the complaint say their autistic teenage daughter joined a gay-straight alliance and was convinced to dress and act like a boy at school. The challenge says the girl became suicidal before her parents learned of "confusing influences" at school.

 

 

The Alberta government and others have argued that schools shouldn't inform parents if their children join the peer groups because there is the potential to "out" the students to guardians who may not be accepting. 

Gay-straight alliances are peer support networks organized by students meant to help gay kids feel welcome and to prevent bullying or abuse. Carpenter said LGBTQ students are particularly vulnerable to bullying, disrespect and abuse and have a suicide rate that's markedly higher than their peers.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/schools-parents-dispute-alberta-gay-straight-alliance-law-1.3980920

You are running scared of me here. I'm challenging you to answer this morally because I'm agreeing that the parents likely have a Constitutional right to prevent their kids from 

Quote

gay-straight alliances as "ideological sexual clubs" that make graphic information on gay sex available

Compare to the parents of non-Catholics (including Atheists) who might say that they have a Constitutional right to prevent their kids from 

Quote

Catholic-Christian alliances as "ideological religious clubs" that make graphic information about the risks of going to Hell to all kids if they don't comply available

The comparison here is that you can be right about the first by the Constitution but the second one is the opposite: the Constitution permits the school system available to IMPOSE religious beliefs upon their OWN children without their consent or will!

SO, given these counter-logical positions, if you SAY that you support the right of parents will absolutely, you SHOULD support the second case FOR the Atheists for your same exact reasoning.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[betsy]

14 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You are running scared of me here. I'm challenging you to answer this morally because I'm agreeing that the parents likely have a Constitutional right to prevent their kids from 

Compare to the parents of non-Catholics (including Atheists) who might say that they have a Constitutional right to prevent their kids from 

The comparison here is that you can be right about the first by the Constitution but the second one is the opposite: the Constitution permits the school system available to IMPOSE religious beliefs upon their OWN children without their consent or will!

SO, given these counter-logical positions, if you SAY that you support the right of parents will absolutely, you SHOULD support the second case FOR the Atheists for your same exact reasoning.

 

Atheist or not - there should be no law that BANS parents from being informed by the school!  

Edited June 22, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

21 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

There should be no law that BANS parents from being informed by the school!  

I understand this. You are saying that the act of 'banning' is not denying the children from CHOOSING to do this initially. But the parents knowledge demanded of this is to ACT by doing something to prevent their children a freedom that other kids at the school HAVE a right by the support of the general population. If this club is exposed though, not only do the parents know of their own kids exposure but to all the others. The fear aroused will prevent the religious PARENTS of their own children from direct powers of influence. 

The same goes for the Atheist. The difference in the cases is that the Constitution may protect your right FOR religious interference by parents but denies them AGAINST non-religious parents rights over their kids, not merely by 'informing' but by FORCE!!

Note that Morgan (justice minister of Saskatchewan) is Evangelical and STILL had his justice work to provide the freedom of non-Catholics to remain there and still have parents FUND only the secular system, even though their kids aren't going to one. His choice was not FOR the Atheist but FOR your own Evangelical Non-Catholics. This would SET a precedence that COULD enable the school to further force Evangelicals to be imposed to practice Catholicism, and its 'liberal' ways, including the potential support of privacy for children in their schools to ...'confessions'!! 

Saskatchewan is going against the Constitution by the ruling but WILL use the Notwithstanding Clause upon appeal, should this be done. 

The notwithstanding clause can also be used to go against YOUR Constitutional preference about these bans of parental knowledge of their childrens' choice of 'confessions' in a group about their own sexual orientation. AND if this becomes the case, it becomes the 'law' unless appealed to the Supreme Court. 

POINT: You can't flip between the LEGAL excuse and the MORAL one. If you want to remain consistent, stick with your moral arguments. But because you appear to be deflecting, I'm guessing you don't want to take an apologetic position FOR your own religious beliefs. Fair enough. But then you can only simply state your preference without argument because you are not being consistent. You cannot defend a rationale you believe is right about parents over their kids if you can't be consistent to support this for other religions or non-religions. 

If you stick to the LEGAL fact of the Constitution protecting RELIGIOUS children in general, you can't then argue the MORAL one. The moral defence is to the ones who are NOT legally qualified by the present laws.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[betsy]

55 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I understand this. You are saying that the act of 'banning' is not denying the children from CHOOSING to do this initially. But the parents knowledge demanded of this is to ACT by doing something to prevent their children a freedom that other kids at the school HAVE a right by the support of the general population.

 

 

When you're a minor.......you have to go by your parents.   Unless, that's what the system is trying to change?

 

 

.

Quote

.....by the support of the general population.

The law isn't decided by popularity contest.   It shouldn't.   That would be "mob rule."

The law has to be consistent.

 

But of course, a lot of these appointed judges are swayed by their own ideology, thus we see some laws getting manipulated or tweaked to suit their own agenda.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

I thought about this some more and the law does allow people under 18 to make sexual choices of their own, as well as educating them about those choices.  As such, I think schools should extend those rights to giving the students rights over their privacy of association and discussion of orientation.

 

For religious schools, they should have additional rights to use their values, balanced with a harm reduction and health approach.   They could host GSAs or not, and could inform parents or not.  At that point it isn't a legal as much as political discussion IMO.

[taxme]

21 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Yes, another right-wing fact inventor who is the first to declare verifiable reports as fake news.

Hey, I only just mentioned it, I didn't actually said that it happens. Geez whiz, man.   I am pretty sure that somewhere in your liberal left wing life you did the same thing also and reported "fake news". So, don't act like you are so pure and sweet because you are not. And I can point out many things that were said by the liberal left wing that was reported as fake news. It's time to get real. 

[taxme]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

When it comes to fake news, it seems he who smelt it dealt it.

And I hope that I got some of that smell on you.  

[taxme]

19 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Well I never pointed my finger to muslims in Canada or any other religion in Canada (the islamic state overseas in my comment was just a recent example but I could have given many Christian state examples too) but to respond to your question I don't think that taxman who is posting about returning to moral things and decency and normal again in Canada is a muslim (neither was Harper which I pointed out in my post) in fact I am sure taxman is not muslim and my post was quoting him. Btw, I am sure the majority of muslim population in canada would also not wish a religious state. So lets not unnecessarily scare people of certain group or minority (who is scary here?). My issue is with religious right who wish to impose their moral values on others no matter what religion.

Papa left wing liberal Trudeau started the sexual revolution in Canada.

So, what about the indecent and immoral variety's of sex being promoted by the left wing liberals on Canada and Canadians? Why is it necessary to have a gay pride week or gay pride parades where men and women are pretty much showing off their genitals or young children in school being taught about the gay lifestyle or about transism? Conservatives certainly did not promote all that nonsense. It should have been kept in the closet where it belonged. The only thing that Liberal Chretien gave Canada when he was the prime mistake of Canada was same sex marriage. Liberals appear to be obsessed with and promoting the many variety's of perverted sex. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

15 minutes ago, taxme said:

Papa left wing liberal Trudeau started the sexual revolution in Canada.

 It should have been kept in the closet where it belonged. The only thing that Liberal Chretien gave Canada when he was the prime mistake of Canada was same sex marriage. Liberals appear to be obsessed with and promoting the many variety's of perverted sex. 

Good for Trudeau if he did that. God bless his soul. We are one step farther from islamic republic style country.

So by keeping it in the closet you pretend that it does not exist right? Liberals defend the rights of underdogs and those whose rights have been violated as opposed to conservatives who violate the rights of minorities and underdogs.

Edited June 22, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[taxme]

23 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Good for Trudeau if he did that. God bless his soul. We are one step farther from islamic republic style country.

So by keeping it in the closet you pretend that it does not exist right? Liberals defend the rights of underdogs and those whose rights have been violated as opposed to conservatives who violate the rights of minorities and underdogs.

Well, there appears to be no problem with Trudeau attending Mosques that treat their women like cattle. That is not stepping back one bit. That is more like supporting and promoting it. Trudeau is some kind of a weird feminist that the boy likes to consider himself as. It would appear as though Canada will always have some kind of an Islamic style republic and foothold somewhere in Canada thanks to our prime mistake of Canada. 

I do not need to know or hear all about the gay or trans lifestyle one bit. Why should I? Let them keep their lifestyle in the closet. Just what has all this gay nonsense done for Canada that was good for Canada anyway? How does it help create employment or help build infrastructure? The conservatives did not take any rights away from anyone. They just didn't allow it to get promoted out into the open like the liberals have done. It was kept in the closet where it should be. My lifestyle and beliefs should not be forced on anyone so why should gays seem to feel that their beliefs should be forced on society? It is the minorities and the underdogs that have been promoted by liberalism and who pretty much rule and run Canada today and none of it has been of any benefit or any good for Canada or Canadians or the straight majority who are the ones that are being treated like they are in the minority and who are the real underdogs here and who end up always having to watch their tax dollars being wasted on all of this silly nonsense. My opinion. 

[Selivan]

On 6/22/2018 at 3:27 AM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Well I never pointed my finger to muslims in Canada ...

you're a Muslim homosexual.
It is very creative.

[turningrite]

On 6/21/2018 at 9:39 PM, Centerpiece said:

I hope you are right about Muslims who have come to Canada. Islam demands that faith be intertwined with the State. Hopefully, most of our Canadian Muslims came here to escape that type of oppression. 

One would hope that Muslims who come to Canada moderate their values in order to integrate into largely secular Western cultures in both English and French speaking Canada. But an Environics Institute study released in 2016 suggests this may not be happening. Muslim immigrants not only tend to remain more attached to their own religion and values than to adapt to mainstream values, they are also more likely than not to become more attached to their traditional religious identity and values after arriving in Canada.

https://www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/project-documents/survey-of-muslims-in-canada-2016/muslim-identity-and-practice.pdf?sfvrsn=bfe39328_2

[Rue]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 4:44 PM, BubberMiley said:

Yes, pedophiles have the most to lose when children are made aware of the dangers of exploitation at an early age.

Well let us take a moment on that issue because its more complex than that.

Teaching children to be aware of adults does not necessarily require sex education but when it does yes it can help but not all the time. Pedophiles are masters at lying, manipulating and engaging in coercion. Even the most well educated of kids can be vulnerable.

What, when and how children are taught should depend on their age and maturity level and children mature much differently and in surges of strength in some areas but not in others. Because of our schooling, it has to be done by age of grade.

As well persons of specific religious and cultural groups prohibit certain kinds of awareness and education causing such children to repress and develop parallel worlds, one for the one with their parents, one when in the outside world and they are vocal, not interested in discussion and pull their children out.

As well children and unfortunately very young children are exposed to all kinds of sexual messages as soon as they can work an internet, tv or cell phone but certain ethnic and religious communities are in a collective denial about the media they came to Canada and live in. They try resist it and order their children to avoid it causing unrealistic confusion and conflict.

Here's the real issue. Parents who don't want children taught sex education often do not differentiate between anatomy education and sexual education with moral values attached. It is the latter that upsets them most times not the former once its explained.

Teaching children requires first and foremost not projecting adult bias on children. The person who designed the Ontario curriculum was a pedophile and so necessarily I would argue like all pedophiles has a psychiatric illness that prevented him from understanding the difference between adults and children when he decided to design sexual curriculum and I argued that openly in public with others when it was first introduced. I think he actually harmed and set back efforts to implement a far more effective curriculum that would have avoided the moral lessons he injected.

Kathleen Wynne also had a sexual bias to project to children that being gay is o.k. so much so that she could not and can not see any way but her way and wanted that taught to 4 year olds. Most gays I know who are parents never asked for that no more than heterosexual parents did.

The fact is we have been and can teach children at a very young age why their sisters are designed differently than them and why their mothers and fathers look different. All parents have done it but it should limit itself to anatomical differences not lessons on who is gay or straight. As for anti-bullying you can teach kids not to bully anyone who looks different without going off on tangents about why this one is different because he wants to be a girl. They don't need that. Its information overload. Simply saying the child is different is enough. Children do not need all the answers for everything until they are older.

Today  kids at 4,5,6 go on to web-sites explaining the anatomy in detail if it has no discussion as to sexual behavior they absorb it matter of factly without having any sexual behavior shoved upon them before they are ready.  My nephew loved to explain where feces came from and how the body produced methane gas at 4 and had a site where he showed me food going down into the colon and he loved the gas scenes.Teaching about anatomy is one thing. Teaching about sexual behavior is another and the two need to be distinguished because children have no problem learning about anatomy when they are young. 

Its when we talk about sexual behavior it gets tricky. I argue and always have and I have taught sex education and mediated disputes with parents over the issue, that anatomy education  is not dangerous and I try show religious parents it has nothing to do with teaching moral values. What many are concerned of is when do you discuss  homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality,  abnormal sexual behaviours that endanger children, violent sexual behaviours,.

That is a tough one because each child is unique as a fingerprint and that includes their emotional, cognitive, psychological, intellectual and physical levels of maturity.

If you are asking me someone who has arrested and put away pedophiles, mediated famiy issues for over 20 years and volunteered counselling child victims of sex crimes, sex assault victims, and been a co-facilitator of groups managing violent men and yes pedophiles, I have pretty much the same  views  as the police, social workers, psychiatrists, teachers, nurses. We all believe children at 9 to 11 need preliminary explanations as to sexual behavior without discussing rights and wrongs just what it is and what could be dangerous for their health. At puberty which averages 11-13, that is when children need and are ready for sex education.

As for making choices, the key to sexology is explaining to children, there are serious problems when any sexual behavior is violent, or their is a power imbalance including age, life experience, wealth and when it is not consensual.

Good touch bad touch must be taught to children today when they go to kindergarten or day care. I know of documented cases of sexual assault by 5 year olds. Sorry the world is sick but the level of education and what is taught should be done gradually and depending on the level of age.

Obviously if a child has severe intellectual impairment or has been molested they may need exemption from such programs.

Certain religious parents want the right to teach their children homosexuals are sinners and stay away from them. That clashes directly with Canadian values. So does their views to not discuss female anatomy, or their beliefs  they support that they should cut the clitoris of their daughters to prevent sexual enjoyment or that women are dirty when they have their period and women are lesser than men because of their period.

We have religious values coming into conflict with Canadian values and our progressive leftists embrace and welcome the very ideologies of extreme religious views that reject their views on say homosexuality or feminism and they flip and flop about not knowing what to do fearing alienating both sides.

I am a middle of the roader. I argue we need to teach human anatomy at 4,5 6 ,7,8 very limited and matter of fact and not in a way they can't understand . Children can deal with that. In regards to sexuality I stated gradually starting at 9-11 once anatomy is not a mystery, then at a higher level from 12-14 and another level for teens after 14.

By 9 if it has not been presented in a healthy way  its already been taught through musicians and t.v.

Our curriculum must definitively say sex with violence, sex with power imbalances and no consent,  sex as a tool to coerce and manipulate is unhealthy and should not be welcomed. In regards to choosing one's sex partner, if we equip them to understand it should be consensual, no power imbalances, no violence, we did our job and if they choose to be gay, straight, bi, we should remain neutral and let them come to it. Most do naturally-they should not and do not need anyone imposing their preferences on them,

That said I myself do have some confusion over how parents treat children they call transsexual and I will explain why. Some children or young adults are I n fact homosexuals or gay and they were born that way. Some of them, not all of them, may have learned being gay as bad so feel if they change to the other gender they will become normal. This is why some in the gay community and for that matter straight community belief some not all supposed transgender persons are maladapting to being gay and instead should learn to be comfortable with their bodies before they make such decisions and their parents should not tell them how and what to do. We call their discomfort with their bodies dysmorphia and its no different than why certain people engage in multiple plastic and cosmetic surgeries or pump up on steroids. They don't like the bodies they have for many reasons.

If indeed a child feels he or she is the opposite sex at a very young age, I am of the school of thought to tell them and encourage them to accept the bodies they have, not worry about their feelings and just be who they are with their bodies and in later life after they finish growing then they can pursue the matter further. I tell their parents to cool it.

I think some parents project their views on children to protect them and in fact unintentionally pressure them to change sexes or repress their feelings. Its not easy being a parent trying to do what is right.

That is the one area I leave and stay away from. Its the domain of psychiatrists and pediatricians and parents  I always believe when you have any issue with your children have and talk to your pediatrician. Start there. Please start there. Don't expect the teacher or principal to solve the problem.

Hope that adds to this debate and explains to you it is true sex education can help children be less vulnerable to pedophiles but not all the time.

I appreciate we have to balance the privacy rights of families, their religious beliefs and right to have a say in their children's decisions up to 18. I don't automatically claim to or want to discard it. I only advocate that under dire life threatening circumstances.

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by Rue

[GostHacked]

On 6/21/2018 at 8:21 AM, BubberMiley said:

Kids can decide when they want to talk about such things with their parents on their own time. They don't need you or anybody else butting their noses into their personal business. MYOB.

Until they are 18 or move out, while in my house,  MY rules.

 

On 6/21/2018 at 2:52 PM, betsy said:

They're undermining parental authority, and corrupting kids to their ideology.   Don't ever immagine that this new marijuana legislation isn't a part of it.   Expect a spike on teen pregnancy.....and road accidents!

I agree about undermining parental authority. However there are still no accidents (well in Ottawa) that are pot related. There is no need to keep weed illegal as many Canadians smoke it and guess what.. nothing changed for them with legalization.

[betsy]

9 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Until they are 18 or move out, while in my house,  MY rules.

 

I agree about undermining parental authority. However there are still no accidents (well in Ottawa) that are pot related. There is no need to keep weed illegal as many Canadians smoke it and guess what.. nothing changed for them with legalization.

 

I don't know if they'll give us accurate info on numbers of  weed-related accidents - if they'll just all lump them together along with alcohol and other recreational drugs as, impaired driving.

Edited December 19, 2018 by betsy

[GostHacked]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

 

I don't know if they'll give us accurate info on numbers of  weed-related accidents - if they'll just all lump them together along with alcohol and other recreational drugs as, impaired driving.

The more immediate problem is distracted driving. (Sorry off topic)

https://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Pages/2017-Sept6.aspx

 

 

[BubberMiley]

7 hours ago, betsy said:

 

I don't know if they'll give us accurate info on numbers of  weed-related accidents - if they'll just all lump them together along with alcohol and other recreational drugs as, impaired driving.

Yes, if you don't like the data, talk about how you don't know anything about the data. Maybe that will make people question the data. It works in all situations.

[jacee]

On 6/21/2018 at 3:51 PM, betsy said:

Wynne may be gone, but the problem isn't.   The socialists/coimmunist mentality also include the alt-left.  

One of the characteristics of an alt-left is being a rabid anti-religion. 

Some people don't get their values in life from religion. Some just practice respect for all people out of common decency. And common decency would suggest not judging people because they are born different than 'the norm'. 

Gay-straight alliances can help kids figure out how and when to talk to parents about their sexual orientation, and support them through it when parents have difficulty supporting their own child. 

IMO religions that discriminate against people of different sexual orientations are religions where man-made rules are revered above God's creations.That could also be called heresy.

Churches were formed by men to control the minds of the masses and pick money from their pockets. Thus, their "rules" are highly suspect. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, jacee said:

Some people don't get their values in life from religion. Some just practice respect for all people out of common decency. And common decency would suggest not judging people because they are born different than 'the norm'.  

You use the word 'common' and that's something I want to comment on: there are now 'common' values that include respect, tolerance and even celebration of LGBTQ people.

And you will be able to tell that by watching how much Doug Ford, for example, limits his rhetoric and action in these areas.

[jacee]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You use the word 'common' and that's something I want to comment on: there are now 'common' values that include respect, tolerance and even celebration of LGBTQ people.

And you will be able to tell that by watching how much Doug Ford, for example, limits his rhetoric and action in these areas.

Interesting that none of his PC MPP's are pushing back at him on this issue: No PC MPP's who are LGBTQ or are parents of LGBTQ people? 

That seems very odd, and unrepresentative of the population of Ontario. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by jacee

[betsy]

21 hours ago, jacee said:

Some people don't get their values in life from religion. Some just practice respect for all people out of common decency. And common decency would suggest not judging people because they are born different than 'the norm'. 

Gay-straight alliances can help kids figure out how and when to talk to parents about their sexual orientation, and support them through it when parents have difficulty supporting their own child. 

IMO religions that discriminate against people of different sexual orientations are religions where man-made rules are revered above God's creations.That could also be called heresy.

Churches were formed by men to control the minds of the masses and pick money from their pockets. Thus, their "rules" are highly suspect. 

That's your opinion.....

 

 

[betsy]

17 hours ago, jacee said:

Interesting that none of his PC MPP's are pushing back at him on this issue: No PC MPP's who are LGBTQ or are parents of LGBTQ people? 

That seems very odd, and unrepresentative of the population of Ontario. 

 

Maybe, these LGBTQ PC MPPs know enough, and agree that the school shouldn't try to usurp parental rights.

 

Btw,

 

Teachers' union challenge of Ontario sex-ed curriculum tossed

https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/teachers-union-challenge-of-ontario-sex-ed-curriculum-tossed

 

 

 

[jacee]

On 6/22/2018 at 7:36 AM, betsy said:

 

Atheist or not - there should be no law that BANS parents from being informed by the school!  

Reporting what?

That your kid has gay friends?

 

[betsy]

4 hours ago, jacee said:

Reporting what?

That your kid has gay friends?

 

Read the article in the OP.