Ontario sex education program.

[bornagainbiking]

Saw a commercial yesterday, it was called I am a girl, don't confuse me. It was about all the information in our school system on educating our children on alternative life styles.
I don't think it is fair to the kids to provide so much information while they are trying to understand life in general.
TMI... We must be understanding and tolerant but with all these books to read and look at pictures of the gay pride parade is this education or recruitment.
Maybe we need more reading, writin and arithmetic. I disagree in the format but believe in teaching understanding and acceptance.

[ForestryW]

Originally Posted by bornagainbiking

TMI... We must be understanding and tolerant but with all these books to read and look at pictures of the gay pride parade is this education or recruitment.

bornagainbiking, based on what I've seen on this forum I don't get the sense that you're especially conservative or homophobic, but...seriously??

If this is part of the new curriculum, I think it's great.

[Spocket]

I dunno ... I understand the issue here .

I don't see the problem as long as it's not being put in classrooms before about grade seven I'd say . I just think that kids have better things to do with their time in school . Aside from that , kids really don't care much about the idea of sex or sexuality prior to puberty anyway . It's a wasted effort if it's too early but that's just my opinion .

I actually think that this sort of thing belongs in our education system but I have to point out that kids today get enough of this message already . What they don't appear to be getting drilled into their heads is spelling , math , physics , or literature (for example ) I've never really bought into the social 'sciences' because they're about as scientific as Creationism but a few basic messages should be conveyed . If this means gay teens have less hostility and aggression pointed their way then by all means , throw it into the mix .

[eternallyme]

Agreed, it should not be done until at least Grade 6 or 7 and only with parental permission. If parents want their kids learning it in the later grades then go ahead, but in primary grades?

[vid]

Originally Posted by bornagainbiking

Saw a commercial yesterday, it was called I am a girl, don't confuse me. It was about all the information in our school system on educating our children on alternative life styles.

When I was 13—about ten years ago this month, in fact—I started noticing boys. I didn't know what homosexuality was at the time (I knew the word, though; other kids had heard about it in other ways). I entered a suicidal depression that lasted years and severely hampered my potential for success later in life.

This is why we need to teach comprehensive sex education in schools, starting with very basic anatomy by grade 3. Cover the basics of the reproductive system by grade 6. Safe sex and drug use should be covered by the end of elementary school so that kids understand the risks surrounding them before they start high school. Parents should be engaged in the sex-ed process, keeping track with teachers about what their children are learning and when. (Personally, I think parents should be keeping track with their children's education in all areas and at all times; if you don't have the time to understand what your kids are learning, then you made a mistake by having them—something proper sex ed might have prevented!!)

Parents are flipping out about this, but the real change we need is for them to become more engaged in education, and they're still not doing this.

Originally Posted by bornagainbiking

I don't think it is fair to the kids to provide so much information while they are trying to understand life in general.

You think it is unfair to provide information that will help kids understand life while they're trying to understand life? That is like saying it is unfair to offer an instruction manual while your friend is repairing his car. What kind of fucked up logic is this?

Originally Posted by bornagainbiking

TMI...

No, TLI. Watch The Education of Shelby Knox to understand why sex ed is so important.

Originally Posted by bornagainbiking

We must be understanding and tolerant but with all these books to read and look at pictures of the gay pride parade is this education or recruitment.

You say we must be "understanding" but then repeat the "gay recruiters" talking point straight from anti-Gay propaganda.

LGBTQ people were not "recruited". I know that I was born gay because I remember having gay thoughts when I was very young, before I was ever exposed to anything "gay".

It isn't like Mormons where a couple drag queens go knocking door-to-door asking people if they'd like to talk about direct prostate stimulation to fill some weekly quota for their silly cult. We didn't have gay pride parades in the 1930s but we still had gay people. How do you think that is?

What you are "worried" about is the sexual orientation equivalent of worrying that by being exposed to black people, you children to turn into Africans.

Originally Posted by bornagainbiking

Maybe we need more reading, writin and arithmetic.

Judging by most of your posts, we've needed more writing for a very long time.

Originally Posted by bornagainbiking

I disagree in the format but believe in teaching understanding and acceptance.

Not really. You've demonstrated with this post that you have trouble with understanding what understanding and acceptance even are.

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Agreed, it should not be done until at least Grade 6 or 7 and only with parental permission. If parents want their kids learning it in the later grades then go ahead, but in primary grades?

Teaching about homosexuality and safe sex in grade 3 is about the same as teaching them calculus. But you can't learn calculus without grade 3 math, can you?

Sex ed has to stop being "that creepy week in grade 7" and become an actual part of the curriculum. If we can show kids in grade 5 photos from the holocaust while they read Anne Frank, I'm sure they can handle a diagram of reproductive organs and a basic explanation of what they're there for.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by vid

Teaching about homosexuality and safe sex in grade 3 is about the same as teaching them calculus. But you can't learn calculus without grade 3 math, can you?

Sex ed has to stop being "that creepy week in grade 7" and become an actual part of the curriculum. If we can show kids in grade 5 photos from the holocaust while they read Anne Frank, I'm sure they can handle a diagram of reproductive organs and a basic explanation of what they're there for.

I see your point and have always more or less accepted the need to put this sort of thing into the curriculum . The problem I have is that at grade three , kids just don't care or understand about sexuality anyway . I just see it as a waste of time at that age .

On the other hand , I suppose if you can introduce the idea in a more abstract way (colours , smiles , people having fun) well okay , no problem . I personally have never understood why anybody believes that homosexuality is a choice rather than just the way some people are born . I highly doubt anybody is going to be "converted" thanks to body paint .

In any case , the kids just won't get it if they're too young . It's fun for them to watch probably but the greater message is undoubtedly lost on them . The Pride parades are obviously meant for a more mature audience though so I'm not sure what message the kids are going to walk away with .

It could just as easily backfire ("Why do the nice men have clamps on their nipples ?" lol) so whatever is presented should be as benign or innocuous as possible while still presenting the gay and lesbian community in a positive light . Parents (no matter how tolerant they are) have never been known for having a positive attitude towards introducing their kids to sex before they (the parents) feel it's appropriate .

[vid]

Originally Posted by Spocket

I see your point and have always more or less accepted the need to put this sort of thing into the curriculum . The problem I have is that at grade three , kids just don't care or understand about sexuality anyway . I just see it as a waste of time at that age .

Kids in grade 3 see a lot of what they learn as a pointless waste of time. If you're using "they'll see it as a waste of time" as an argument to exclude it from the curriculum, then you might as well can everything except recess and lunch time.

Originally Posted by Spocket

On the other hand , I suppose if you can introduce the idea in a more abstract way (colours , smiles , people having fun) well okay , no problem .

I would have thought you to be against this kind of education? I just want them to understand what all the pieces on them are called and what they're for. I honestly don't except eight-year-olds to learn in-depth about homosexuality. It can be mentioned ("some men love men instead of women" or whatever) but hardly needs to be covered in depth that early. And I am not sure if covering things in abstract ways is even reasonable for eight-year-olds. Would they get "some people are gay" our of "the colourful smiling people are having fun"

Originally Posted by Spocket

I personally have never understood why anybody believes that homosexuality is a choice rather than just the way some people are born . I highly doubt anybody is going to be "converted" thanks to body paint .

It's easy to understand. Religious groups hate that they're becoming less relevant and love forcing their prejudices on other people in the name of the most famous communist ever born (Jesus).

Originally Posted by Spocket

In any case , the kids just won't get it if they're too young .

If they don't get it then what is the problem? Kids today were raised on Boobah and high fructose corn syrup. Gay pride parades are the least of their problems.

The gay pride festival in Thunder Bay was more like a picnic for same sex couples (since they're a larger proportion of our LGBT population than they are in Toronto) and the children seemed to "get it" just fine. The only ones who really get confused are the ones who are given a reason to be confused by their parents, who are themselves either confused, ignogrant, or malicious.

Originally Posted by Spocket

It's fun for them to watch probably but the greater message is undoubtedly lost on them .

It's lost on most straight people too. Hell, even most young gay people today have little idea about the history of gay pride. (Stonewall Riots, AIDS, etc.)

Originally Posted by Spocket

The Pride parades are obviously meant for a more mature audience though so I'm not sure what message the kids are going to walk away with .

"My parents were irresponsible/stupid enough to bring me to an overtly sexual exhibition"? I don't think it is any worse than bringing them to church, really. Lot was hauled into a cave and raped by his daughters and you're worried about "Why do the nice men have clamps on their nipples"? Lol indeed.

Originally Posted by Spocket

whatever is presented should be as benign or innocuous as possible while still presenting the gay and lesbian community in a positive light .

"Mommy, I just killed a hooker in my stolen car!!"

Benign or innocuous indeed!

Originally Posted by Spocket

Parents (no matter how tolerant they are) have never been known for having a positive attitude towards introducing their kids to sex before they (the parents) feel it's appropriate .

The problem is that many parents never feel it is ever appropriate.

[Spocket]

So basically Vid , you have a problem with anybody who raises any objections even if they're in agreement with you on the whole .

Perhaps a little reflection here on your hostility would advance your cause a little further . Your reaction is precisely what the "right wing wackos" use to label you as ideologically rather than reason-driven . I find it very strange that you would take the opportunity to engage in ad-hominem attacks against those that support you (albeit with some concerns)

Now , go and make your long-winded , point-by-point rebuttal where you deconstruct every word , assign some hidden meaning and ulterior motive to it , take a jab at me for daring to do what you're doing (voicing your opinion) and tell me again why you're different from an obsessed ideologue incapable of reasonable discussion . Or , as a contrarian , I'm sure you'll try your best to do exactly the opposite of whatever it is you think I expect .

[vid]

Originally Posted by Spocket

So basically Vid , you have a problem with anybody who raises any objections even if they're in agreement with you on the whole .

Perhaps a little reflection here on your hostility would advance your cause a little further . Your reaction is precisely what the "right wing wackos" use to label you as ideologically rather than reason-driven . I find it very strange that you would take the opportunity to engage in ad-hominem attacks against those that support you (albeit with some concerns)

Now , go and make your long-winded , point-by-point rebuttal where you deconstruct every word , assign some hidden meaning and ulterior motive to it , take a jab at me for daring to do what you're doing (voicing your opinion) and tell me again why you're different from an obsessed ideologue incapable of reasonable discussion . Or , as a contrarian , I'm sure you'll try your best to do exactly the opposite of whatever it is you think I expect .

I've gotten into enough arguments with people today. Here is a turtle plush:

[jeremy_haak]

I actually think it's better to teach these things before children are remotely interested in the subject matter because if you wait until they are, it is too late. By then, they are learning it in the school yard (certainly not from their parents) which is the worst possible source of information. By treating the subject as taboo as well, we reinforce the notion that sex and sexuality is something to be ashamed of. What is so bad about teaching basic anatomy to children anyway?

I don't think kids should be going on field trips to pride, but I really have to wonder how many people who cite pride as this terrible debauched event have actually attended it. 90% of it is people walking down the street in shorts and t-shirts with their mother or coworkers at their side.

[Doady]

The PC candidate for Brampton West, Ben Shenouda, campaigned on this issue. It's really too bad he didn't get elected to stop this brainwashing and corruption of our children.

[vid]

I'm glad he didn't win. Government has enough confused idiots as it is. His own propaganda shows that he confuses recommendations from a non-government organization with active government policy. I wouldn't be surprised if an MPP Ben Shenouda occasionally made the error of debating a cereal box nutrition panel instead of the bills that have been tabled.