Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ontario to turn back the clock on Sex-Ed
#1
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ont...ister-says


IMO, the vast majority of people who were/are opposed to the newer curriculum, are people that lack sex education. 

People worried that if their child learns what homosexual means, they will somehow be "converted" into one.
People that wanted the LGBTQ community to exist in a closet...confused, shunned, misunderstood, and vilified.
People that want to pretend we don't have sex before marriage, so don't tempt these children by explaining it.  

I fail to see a logical reason behind this, and I REALLY fail to see a logical reason to pull the existing program before a suitable replacement (not that we needed one) was drawn up.  

To roll back the clock 20 years, to a horribly outdated curriculum that didn't even include education on the impact that social media and the internet can have on sex/bullying/consequences/etc...is just inexcusable.
Reply
Thanks given by: bchippie
#2
I’ve seen some protests here in London and usually the Muslim mother’s at the front, not to pick on that particular group but there are a lot of immigrants from this group and usually religious groups are against the sex Ed.
I think there was a Simpsons episode where Ms. Crabapple excused the 2 Jewish kids from class to go pray for our souls.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
As always, well put Bo, couldn’t agree more. Especially in regards to the social media aspect.
My daughter is 3 and half months old and sex & social media and chemical drug use are what I anticipate the biggest challenges will be. I’m hopeful she won’t be taught the same antiquated program I was taught. This is pretty disgraceful to say the least.
Reply
Thanks given by: bchippie
#4
(2018-07-12, 07:58 AM)WTTM Wrote: I think there was a Simpsons episode where Ms. Crabapple excused the 2 Jewish kids from class to go pray for our souls.

Huh. I never considered those kids Jewish, I thought they were fundamentalist Christian or Jehovah's Witnesses or something.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
(2018-07-12, 08:09 AM)Hieremias Wrote:
(2018-07-12, 07:58 AM)WTTM Wrote: I think there was a Simpsons episode where Ms. Crabapple excused the 2 Jewish kids from class to go pray for our souls.

Huh. I never considered those kids Jewish, I thought they were fundamentalist Christian or Jehovah's Witnesses or something.

I could be confusing them with the kids getting called into church and the two others getting called for their violin lessons.

But yes any group of people who live their lives with a strong emphasis on religion will have an issue with the sex Ed.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
Sex is bad, except of course when used to produce more devout followers of [insert your favourite deity].

To me, hearing this and now that Roe vs Wade will be attacked again in the States is discouraging. Politicians really have nothing to offer anymore. Wedge politics, wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics,  wedge politics, wedge politics.

Here's an idea: how about having an original thought not based on creating a schism in the society you aim to represent for the sole purpose of pleasing the frothing at the mouth slice of your supporters?
The MB Trifecta: Low Cost, Low Risk, No Return
Reply
Thanks given by:
#7
Premier Doug Ford promised to repeal and replace the controversial sex-ed curriculum when he ran for the Progressive Conservative leadership and repeated the pledge during the spring election.


Hmmm...where have we heard that before?
It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled -Mark Twain
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
It's hard to imagine anything more ass-backwards in terms of progress regarding sex education, than catering the curriculum to appeasing religious people.

On the subject of sex (which expands to preference, gender, etc etc) there is no more incorrect and detrimental stance one can have than the archaic one that most religions take. It is a toxic soup of being deliberately uninformed, confrontational, exclusionary, arrogant and stubborn...all "qualities" we would correctly try to steer our children away from acquiring.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
Of course he was going to do this, he wouldn't have been elected without this wedge issue.

I foresee this curriculum coming and going with every new government. Next time the Liberals are elected they'll reinstate it almost immediately, and then the next Tory will repeal it on his first day, and so on. Like US federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#10
(2018-07-12, 09:22 AM)Hieremias Wrote: Of course he was going to do this, he wouldn't have been elected without this wedge issue.

I foresee this curriculum coming and going with every new government. Next time the Liberals are elected they'll reinstate it almost immediately, and then the next Tory will repeal it on his first day, and so on. Like US federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Of course he would have been elected without this. this was such a minor point that it had almost zero impact. most of the people that would want this repealed are the ones that vote blue no matter what.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
No I think what what Hier is saying is that he wouldn't have won the leadership without promising he'd scrap it immediately.

He immediately became the 2nd choice for the Granic Allen crew.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#12
I had no sex-ed during my time.
My friend's ex (mid 20's) used to think that girls could get pregnant from blow jobs.

Yeah...Can't make up this stuff...

The more sex-ed knowledge, the better.
Just figure out the best age to provide the education.
Why is common sense not so common?
Reply
Thanks given by: Sportking
#13
Do young children really need to be taught about homophobia, STD's, rape, anal & oral sex?
Reply
Thanks given by: Sportking , Highstyx
#14
Yes. Not young - not before a certain age.
Either school should do that...or parents should.

And with the quality of today's parents...well, let's just say leave it to the schools.
Why is common sense not so common?
Reply
Thanks given by:
#15
I'm really looking forward to this exciting platform from conservative parties for generations to come:

"We promise to undo the changes the other guys do."
Reply
Thanks given by:
#16
What a backwards move. There are so many great organizations that do so much to promote a consent based sex education and they all have their work cut out for them for the next few years. Quality sex education saves money in the long run in addition to having a healthier population. Less unwanted pregnancies as well. 

Like why this is even allowed to be changed is beyond me. Its working, it was working perfectly fine and was the one indisputable thing the Liberals did while in power.
If you need a sign to stay alive tonight, this is it!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#17
(2018-07-12, 10:05 AM)CTS Wrote: Do young  children really need to be taught about homophobia,  STD's, rape, anal & oral sex?

They're exposed to it anyway, what's the harm of educating them? 
I know you're jealous of people who "done learned" but education is a great way to avoid the dangers that come with all those topics. Wouldn't you prefer your daughter is educated about rape and equipped with some tools that will help protect herself?
Reply
Thanks given by: Bong13
#18
Ontario keeps making Albert look better and better, keep up the good work.

And yes its very important to teach our kids about safe sex, STD's etc.

Perhaps men will stop sexually assaulting women at such a high rate if we have these conversations when they are young.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#19
(2018-07-12, 10:05 AM)CTS Wrote: Do young  children really need to be taught about homophobia,  STD's, rape, anal & oral sex?

What do you consider "young" children? 

If it's 5-10, the curriculum doesn't even approach the specific subjects you mentioned. They teach respecting other people's personal space (in preparation for the discussion on sexual consent when the kids are age appropriate), they talk about your body growing, and changes to your body as you age being normal (in preparation for helping kids understand the changes to their sexual body parts when they are age appropriate), they teach inclusion of everyone (in preparation for applying that basic principle to people regardless of sexual orientation when that becomes relevant)

They don't just leap straight to rape, gay sex and STDs. The assumption that they would is frankly disturbing. 

It's a gradual education process where the basics of respect, consent, inclusion, and understanding get expanded on and later applied to the specific things you mentioned when they reach an age where it would be of use/value/relevance.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#20
Is it just me or is Doug Ford looking a little more orangey each day?
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)