Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In terms of looking for what Ontario once was I would think the Maritimes would be a much better choice. Many rural communities there are in decline and certainly could benefit from an influx of decent, hardworking conservative folk.
I'm a Maritimer, born and raised. If xenophobia and a pervasive fear of change are important to you, then you will probably like it there. There are plenty of conservatives who share those values.
However, it's precisely because of those types of values that the Maritimes are in decline.
...nothing more as a thinly-veiled attempt by Wynne to push a personal homosexual agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Tin-foil hat time!
Exactly. Why do people think homosexuals are on some mission of conversion? Education is only feared by the ignorant and those who seek to control others. It's why religion has always feared (and oppressed) science and why politicians fear (and oppress) the media.
In my experience, those most vehemently opposed to sexual matters are themselves harbouring urges and desires that they find unsettling (like a certain Republican senator who found himself trolling for "friendship" in a public washroom, despite being vigorously anti-gay). Humans are sexual beings. It is expressed in all sorts of manners. Why not teach kids how to express themselves in healthy ways? If they want to experiment, they need to be informed of truths and consequences.
They are going to find out all about it anyway, even if you keep them chained in a basement cowering with whatever superstitious book of mumb-jumbo you choose to denigrate their intelligence with.
I agree with with you you say. Thank you for explaining.
I understand that not everyone comes here as a clean slate. Everyone, even those from similar Western European countries, comes here bringing their cultural baggage. That's just a fact of life for an immigrant country like Canada.
Someone earlier asked whether certain cultures are better than others? I'll probably cause a firestorm by giving this very politically incorrect response - well yes. Not all cultures and cultural traditions are equal. I think most in Canada and the United States would agree that western liberal democratic traditions - freedom of expression, a secular public realm, an openness to all discussions - are infinitely more desirable than other less open-minded cultures (ISIS anyone?).
Yes we don't mind you teaching your own kids at home about your cultural traditions or your personal views on sexuality, gender, etc. That's the inherent right of all parents, within their private realm. However, we as a society also have an over-arching set of fundamental values and laws that we reserve the right to voice in the public realm - in schools, universities, legislatures, media. Whether you agree with one view or the other is the audience's individual choice, but both sides reserve the right to voice and to educate our respect values, whether in the private or in the public sphere.
I don't think that anyone who has ever given the issue a passing thought would argue that the by-products of some cultures aren't better than others. We make value judgements all the time and it's one of the reasons I am a pacifist - by definition, I've made a judgement on those who aren't. But at the same time, I think there needs to be some separation of the values that are important to the functioning of a democratic society and those that aren't all that important. They may be important on some level, but not necessarily on a daily functioning one.
If sex education was something required for the human race to procreate, then that might be a really important issue. As it stands, I don't think it is all that important in the sense that it is self-limiting in today's age.
I was born in 1962, so while I didn't experience the sexual revolution personally in that decade, it was still the start of a more open attitude towards sexuality. That continued in the seventies and there was the idea that the sex act was just a bodily function. Then I think it might have been as early as the 80s when a number of studies hit the news that girls can actually be traumatised to an extent because they bond and therefore the previous ideas about sex were no longer valid.
And then came AIDS and everyone was afraid to have sex without a committed partner. I guess we're at the f buddy place now. And I imagine that the parents who aren't liking the new curriculum are concerned about the timing of sex education, feeling that what is child-appropriate can differ from child to child, and also wanting to pass along their particular moral values, which is something all parents do. And for me the question is whether that is actually damaging to society, if the school system doesn't educate children on masturbation and other forms of sexual expression.
People seemed to have figured a lot of things out before it was taught in schools.
PS: Well, maybe I'm wrong. I don't really have all that big an interest in sex ed in schools since I am not impacted by it, but it just occurred to me that perhaps the point of the sex ed and anal sex issue is about protection against diseases? It's hard for me to fathom 4th graders having sex but that could be my age speaking. And I still want to know what that other letter in FB stands for. One of the disadvantages of not having children is that you don't get all the up-to-date slang.
I don't think that anyone who has ever given the issue a passing thought would argue that the by-products of some cultures aren't better than others. We make value judgements all the time and it's one of the reasons I am a pacifist - by definition, I've made a judgement on those who aren't. But at the same time, I think there needs to be some separation of the values that are important to the functioning of a democratic society and those that aren't all that important. They may be important on some level, but not necessarily on a daily functioning one.
If sex education was something required for the human race to procreate, then that might be a really important issue. As it stands, I don't think it is all that important in the sense that it is self-limiting in today's age.
I was born in 1962, so while I didn't experience the sexual revolution personally in that decade, it was still the start of a more open attitude towards sexuality. That continued in the seventies and there was the idea that the sex act was just a bodily function. Then I think it might have been as early as the 80s when a number of studies hit the news that girls can actually be traumatised to an extent because they bond and therefore the previous ideas about sex were no longer valid.
And then came AIDS and everyone was afraid to have sex without a committed partner. I guess we're at the f buddy place now. And I imagine that the parents who aren't liking the new curriculum are concerned about the timing of sex education, feeling that what is child-appropriate can differ from child to child, and also wanting to pass along their particular moral values, which is something all parents do. And for me the question is whether that is actually damaging to society, if the school system doesn't educate children on masturbation and other forms of sexual expression.
People seemed to have figured a lot of things out before it was taught in schools.
PS: Well, maybe I'm wrong. I don't really have all that big an interest in sex ed in schools since I am not impacted by it, but it just occurred to me that perhaps the point of the sex ed and anal sex issue is about protection against diseases? It's hard for me to fathom 4th graders having sex but that could be my age speaking. And I still want to know what that other letter in FB stands for. One of the disadvantages of not having children is that you don't get all the up-to-date slang.
FWB - Friends with benefits
NSA - No strings attached
Thanks for the coherent explanations Makes this discussion much more civil and interesting.
I think there's a lot of misconceptions about this new sex-ed curriculum (highly doubt any of those protesters or majority of parents even took the time to read the contents of the curriculum), in that people automatically assume that 3rd graders are going to be taught masturbation and anal sex... I read a quick summary of the updated sex-ed curriculum - the only aspect of sexuality mentioned in 3rd grade is the fact some children have gay parents and that it's okay to have gay parents - which I think is essential considering that some of these children are indeed coming from families with gay or lesbian parents, and it's all the more important that the school re-assures these children and their peers, to pre-empt possible bullying or harassment of children from same-sex families.
Another aspect of the new sex-ed curriculum is that, at no point in time are elementary or middle school students going to be taught the various techniques of sex or masturbation. No this is not Kama Sutra - I'm sure kids and teenagers can read all the fun details on their own time via Google incognito-mode. By grade 8, children will be taught how STIs are transmitted through various means of sexual contact, and common preventive measures through contraception and safe sex practices. Pretty essential knowledge - as I personally knew a few classmates when I was in 8th grade who had already had sex in their early teenage years, not uncommon in this day and age.
By Grade 8, students will be taught the four most commonly identified sexual orientations - heterosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, and that it's absolutely okay to have different sexual orientations among different individuals. Most importantly, they are taught how to use these terms appropriately, and not in a derogatory manner that may be hurtful to those different from them.
Huffington post did a very comprehensive fact check of some of the key aspects of the new curriculum:
Full disclosure: I have two kids who are in the prime age audience for this stuff, but they go to school in Quebec, not Ontario.
I must say that my personal view is that any concern about kids being exposed to detailed sexual information (and stuff like homosexuality) is largely outweighed by the benefit to kids who in a previous era might have had a lot of anxiety (or worse) related to their sexual feelings and identity, who now can at least learn and have the self-confidence that they're "ok" just being who they are.
How many suicides, murders and other tragedies have happened because of what kids used to be taught was "normal" vs. "abnormal".
By Grade 8, students will be taught the four most commonly identified sexual orientations - heterosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, and that it's absolutely okay to have different sexual orientations among different individuals. Most importantly, they are taught how to use these terms appropriately, and not in a derogatory manner that may be hurtful to those different from them.
Children should be taught to not use any sort of derogatory words (sexual or otherwise) to describe their peers long before grade 8. BTW, you missed 4 orientations: Transgender, asexual, zooaphilla, and pedophilia.
It's so completely arrogant to propose that you can "push" a "homosexual agenda". You're either gay, have some bisexual inclination, or not at all. This isn't politics, it's nature. Deal with reality. Please.
Give me a break. You can push any sort of political agenda you want if you are in a position of power to do so. Whether it be a black agenda, a right-wing agenda, a socialist agenda or *gasp* a homosexual agenda, etc. etc. etc.
Perhaps you should try a dose of reality yourself, pal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx
Children should be taught to not use any sort of derogatory words (sexual or otherwise) to describe their peers long before grade 8. BTW, you missed 4 orientations: Transgender, asexual, zooaphilla, and pedophilia.
Transgender is a mental disease, not a sexual orientation.
Give me a break. You can push any sort of political agenda you want if you are in a position of power to do so. Whether it be a black agenda, a right-wing agenda, a socialist agenda or *gasp* a homosexual agenda.
Perhaps you should try a dose of reality yourself, pal.
Can I push zoophilia on the public too? Is that something you can simply convince people that they're actually interested in? People who actually believe this stuff don't realize how miserable and ignorant they sound to the outside world.
I like how you describe homosexuality as a "political agenda". Do feel free to also enlighten us to your general view on homosexuality...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Makes this discussion much more civil and interesting. 
Can I push zoophilia on the public too? Is that something you can simply convince people that they're actually interested in? People who actually believe this stuff don't realize how miserable and ignorant they sound to the outside world.
