It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ontarians oppose the new graphic sex-ed program for schools

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: deuceawesome
I think the focus of the controversy needs to move past the premier being gay and to the co author being a pedophile; that is something that both sides could agree on. As a parent it would be that where I would focus my attention.


He had nothing to do with authoring the program that was abandoned in 2013. Please see my previous link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


but we are not discussing something that was abandoned in 2013. we are talking about the current one to be implemented in 2015.


TORONTO — The Liberal government will reintroduce an updated version of the sex education curriculum for Ontario schools that it withdrew in 2010 because of objections from religious leaders, Education Minister Liz Sandals said Thursday. An “age-appropriate” health and physical education curriculum will be ready for the start of classes next fall, based in part on consultations carried out after the past one was withdrawn, Ms. Sandals said.
news.nationalpost.com... ions/

you will notice that this article is not dated prior to 2013 but October 30, 2014.


How does the 2015 curriculum compare to the original 2010 version? CLC has studied the 2015 proposed curriculum and we have found that the controversial elements of the program that angered parents in 2010 have remained unchanged, word for word, at the same age-inappropriate grade levels as before, when it was written under the direction of confessed child pornographer Benjamin Levin, then Deputy Education Minister. The only difference now is that Kathleen Wynne has made the curriculum even more explicit and more age-inappropriate than before, dramatically increasing the mentions of "Gender Identity" theory, sexual "identities" and "orientations". Anal intercourse is still being presented in a way that students will interpret as carrying no higher risk for STIs than vaginal intercourse, an irresponsible and misleading presentation of the former which carries a 3000% higher risk for contracting HIV. The curriculum also downplays the seriousness of contracting HIV, potentially leaving the impression with students that it's not really that big a deal. A section on HIV and AIDS seems to have an undertone of making it acceptable and normal for individuals who are HIV positive to continue having sex with others. That's not science. It's political and social engineering. It may also be highly irresponsible. The 2015 version has added a new, controversial and very flawed theory that will be taught to elementary school children, called "gender expression". The new curriculum document also has a much stronger undertone of sex as a purely recreational activity whose purpose is pleasure, apart from love or marriage. In fact, the words "love" and "marriage" never appear once in the sex-education strand of the curriculum. Not a single mention. Does that reveal the mindset of its writers, if not the philosophical underpinnings the curriculum itself?
www.campaignlifecoalition.com...
edit on 15-3-2015 by generik because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I was annoyed at you calling me a pervert, to say everybody who doesn't share your opinion on this is a pervert is pretty arrogant.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I can state with some certainty that, growing up in the Bible Belt definitely provided me with a tainted view on sexuality, and it's really a shame. Kids shouldn't have dogma forced on them; they should learn about their bodies BEFORE their bodies start screaming out to them for answers.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: Annee

Ah, the Campaign Life Coalition, basically a bunch of strangers on the Internet who presumptively believe everyone should believe as they do, that women should not own their own bodies, and that marriage is so holy an institution that it should be illegal for two people of the same gender to marry, an institution that is so well kept by straight people, including atheists.



Yep. The "Family Values" and NOM group of Canada.

LIFESITE NEWS ----- is one of their projects.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
I looked through it and it seemed Ok, but apparently I'm a pervert,


Aren't we all? LOL!

a reply to: generik

Thanks for that info. I guess people can criticize it when it actually comes out.

But I'm not going to take the judgments and opinions of either "Life Site News" OR "Campaign Life Coalition" as dependable, credible sources, especially when they continue to insist that Ben Levin had something to do with the specifics of it. Of course, this curriculum is not going to be what religious people want to see in the schools. They should put their kids in private schools if they don't want science taught to them...



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
As someone who is trained to teach SEN children about Relationships and Sex, it's important to ensure that children have more information not less. Age appropriate language needs to be used and children need to know the "proper" words for body parts. They need to be able to protect themselves and have a clear understanding about what behaviours are appropriate.

We seem to get these stories, every so often, wherever we live, in an attempt to scare people.

We all have the right to decide what our children learn but I hope that we want our children to be well rounded, caring and compassionate individuals who can protect themselves into adulthood.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
When your child goes to school, say age 5.

And their friend/schoolmate's parents are a same sex couple. What do you tell them?

It's stupid and ignorant to think a kid has to be 10 years old (or older) before introducing Facts of Life.


edit on 15-3-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Telos

What does the sexuality of the Premier have to do with it?

I don't see anything wrong with teaching the kids the facts. In fact, more education is what is needed to combat teenage pregnancy and the spread of STDs.

I can see how this would bother someone who wishes to continue their own judgements and hateful treatment of LGBT people.



Yep, because all those underaged kids uniformed on their lesbianism or homosexuality are the biggest contributors to teenage pregnancy. Exactly.


I'm guessing there's better ways to prevent STD's and to educate children on the normality of feeling same sex attraction
edit on 15-3-2015 by Strawberry88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Strawberry88
Yep, because all those underaged kids uniformed on their lesbianism or homosexuality are the biggest contributors to teenage pregnancy. Exactly.


Well, that's not what I said at all, is it?



I'm guessing there's better ways to prevent STD's and to educate children on the normality of feeling same sex attraction


Better than education? What do you propose???



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
When your child goes to school, say age 5.

And their friend/schoolmate's parents are a same sex couple. What do you tell them?

It's stupid and ignorant to think a kid has to be 10 years old (or older) before introducing Facts of Life.




There's a difference between "well, he has two daddies because men can love eachother too!"

And

"Well, to have sex, the man puts his penis in the other's man's... but if they don't like that, they can always have a sword fight!"



though...



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Strawberry88
"Well, to have sex, the man puts his penis in the other's man's... but if they don't like that, they can always have a sword fight!"


Care to show where that that's part of the curriculum? Oh! You mean it's hyperbole? That's what I thought!



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Strawberry88

originally posted by: Annee
When your child goes to school, say age 5.

And their friend/schoolmate's parents are a same sex couple. What do you tell them?

It's stupid and ignorant to think a kid has to be 10 years old (or older) before introducing Facts of Life.




There's a difference between "well, he has two daddies because men can love eachother too!"

And

"Well, to have sex, the man puts his penis in the other's man's... but if they don't like that, they can always have a sword fight!"

though...


No ones being graphic to a 5 year old. Except maybe body parts.

But, teaching them that their bodies and feelings are natural is important.


edit on 15-3-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Strawberry88
Yep, because all those underaged kids uniformed on their lesbianism or homosexuality are the biggest contributors to teenage pregnancy. Exactly.


Well, that's not what I said at all, is it?



I'm guessing there's better ways to prevent STD's and to educate children on the normality of feeling same sex attraction


Better than education? What do you propose???



It sure sounded like that was what you said. How is education on LBGT going to prevent teenage pregnancy?



Educating them with a program not devised by a child pornographer focused on LGBT would be a start.


But it's fine, this doesn't affect me, just expressing my disgust.




And before you, once again, try to allude that anyone who has anything against this has problems with LGBT, you might want to consider again who exactly it is that is involved in the making-of again.

If that doesn't bother you that's ok, then we'll simply agree to disagree.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Strawberry88
"Well, to have sex, the man puts his penis in the other's man's... but if they don't like that, they can always have a sword fight!"


Care to show where that that's part of the curriculum? Oh! You mean it's hyperbole? That's what I thought!



Good thing you're from the future and here to explain us how it's going to go down exactly


Are you seriously going to ignore the little trivial fact that child-pornography came up???



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Strawberry88
Are you seriously going to ignore the little trivial fact that child-pornography came up???


Read my posts in the thread. I have not ignored it at all. In fact, I found the truth about it.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Strawberry88
"Well, to have sex, the man puts his penis in the other's man's... but if they don't like that, they can always have a sword fight!"


Care to show where that that's part of the curriculum? Oh! You mean it's hyperbole? That's what I thought!



Care to explain to me what a teacher will answer when someone asks them that question?


Quite the curriculum if it doesn't acknowledge FACTS OF LIFE such as how homosexuals perform the deed, no?


But ahh, we'll find out when it's too late I guess.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Strawberry88

But why did you focus on gay sex, a child could ask the same question about straight sex. The curriculum dint seem to suggest 5 year olds would be told the mechanics of sex.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Telos
CLARIFICATION...
Some Ontarians oppose the new graphic sex-ed program for schools. Others are just fine with it and are saying that it's about time. I could not help but notice that the OP could not even get his first sentence out without mentioning that Wynne is lesbian. That pretty much sums up his bias for me, and cements the fact that I'd rather have the government provide the programming than him.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Telos

After a little research, I found that this program was abandoned in 2013...



Your original post says this is a "newly-unveiled" program (dated last month)... but in fact, it was unveiled in 2013 and was ABANDONED! But Life Site News felt it appropriate to put it in their news last month to push THEIR anti-gay agenda! LOL! My guess is they want to link sexual predators to homosexuality to rile up the bigots about the fact that gay people are marrying all over the states now.


Actually, despite the hype and applauding from someone, your little research is incomplete and wrong to say the least. In the pic below read the day and month and year.






This highly-criticized curriculum was abandoned by McGuinty


Yes, was abandoned by McGuinty government when he was in power and been reintroduced by Wynne government now that she has the power.


Still, Levin had nothing to do with the specifics of the program but did support the strategy of fairness, equity, and respect.


Levin was and is still considered to be the mastermind of this curriculum

Child sex offender Ben Levin said himself that he was in charge of crafting Ontario sex-ed curriculum


TORONTO, March 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Just-convicted child pornographer Ben Levin played a key role in developing Ontario’s new sex-education curriculum, according to documents revealed by Toronto Sun columnist Joe Warmington, despite claims to the contrary by Premier Kathleen Wynne.

Since Levin was charged with seven child pornography offences, and pled guilty to three, Wynne and her subordinates have repeatedly claimed that Levin, her deputy minister when she was education minister, had nothing to do with her reviled 2010 sex-ed curriculum, which had to be withdrawn in the face of hostile parents.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: Telos
I could not help but notice that the OP could not even get his first sentence out without mentioning that Wynne is lesbian. That pretty much sums up his bias for me, and cements the fact that I'd rather have the government provide the programming than him.


From the very first sentence of the article:


While the Ontario Liberal government under lesbian Premier Kathleen


All I did was use the same words as the article. Wasn't an opinion, just copied few lines.

p.s. And because people like you have this blind faith in the government, we have today a 1.06 $ price per liter of gas while the barrel in the market is 45$ and no one is protesting. 10 years ago when the barrel was 45$ the price in the pump was 60 cents per liter.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join