In a case similar to the lawsuit filed against Microsoft for indirect support of the Family Research Council, Canada’s National Post has recently apologized for running an ad bought by the Institute for Canadian Values that questions Canada’s curriculum requiring young children from kindergarten to 3rd grade to learn about transsexual, transgender, “intersexed,” and “two-spirited” issues. The preamble:
“The National Post believes strongly in the principle of free speech and open, unhindered debate. We believe unpopular points of view should not be censored simply because some readers may find them disturbing, or even offensive. Free speech does not apply only to views that will not offend anyone.”
The Post makes it’s case:
“Where the ad exceeded the bounds of civil discourse was in its tone and manipulative use of a picture of young girl; in the suggestion that such teaching “corrupts” children, with everything that such a charge implies; and in its singling out of groups of people with whose sexuality the group disagrees.”
How this violates the first statement is not obvious. And instead of working with the Institute for Canadian Values to produce ads in closer conformity to their criteria, the Post will be donating the proceeds from the Institute’s advertisement to an organization that promotes the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.
October 3rd, 2011 | 3:58 pm
I, quite frankly, do not see why the onus is on the National Post to work “with the Institute for Canadian Values to produce ads in closer conformity to their criteria.” Free speech protections apply first to the National Post, and they are under no obligation to print slanderous statements that undermine their reputation. When your mission is to incite hatred with blood libel, it might be difficult to find people of good will to help you out (just ask the KKK). In any case, no law prevents the IVC from printing this, they’ll just need to do it on their own time and their own dime; but they are not entitled to the impramatur of a reputable paper while they do it.
October 3rd, 2011 | 5:55 pm
The statements were not slanderous and injured no one’s reputation.
One does get the impression that a strain of pusillanimity runs through Canadian culture. It is too bad.
October 3rd, 2011 | 6:13 pm
Nick, the claim is not that it is illegal for a paper to decline to publish an ad. The claim is that it is ridiculous for a paper to go on about how devoted it is to “free speech” while obviously picking and choosing speech to suit its own political agenda.
October 3rd, 2011 | 6:49 pm
Nick is absolutely right. This is why the Canadian government–which aligns itself with those who call their fellow citizens bigots simply because they believe that our sexual powers have an intrinsic purpose–should not be allowed to advertise in the National Post. Any government that singles out for marginalization and name-calling a group of citizens merely because that group will not abandon its view of sexual justice (i.e., that there is a rightly-ordered application of our reproductive powers) cannot be taken seriously as a protector of fundamental liberties.
October 3rd, 2011 | 7:14 pm
The large part of the ad (picture of little girl and the lines she is supposed to be speaking) is manipulative, and naming their web site stopcorruptingchildren is annoying, but it’s the kind of ad that might make me roll my eyes, not get angry with the paper.
But if you find a copy of the ad that is large enough to read, or you check out the actual curriculum, you’ll find stuff like this for the lower grades:
If the curriculum is effective, they will be turning out kids more liberal minded than I am!
Now, I don’t think this curriculum will cause any girls to wonder if they are boys, or vice versa, or will turn out gay or transexual children. And I hope someday that there is a society where all these values are realized. But I am compelled to say this is an awful lot to be forced on people by the government, and it robs Catholic and other conservative Christian parents of their right to teach children their own values without being flatly contradicted by what the kids are taught in schools. It seems to me to go way too far. I have a feeling the Institute for Canadian Values, if I knew more about them, would probably strike me as going way too far in the opposite direction, so I’m not about to send any donations. But they certainly have some legitimate gripes.
October 3rd, 2011 | 8:07 pm
The question is whether this can be a cause for future legal disputes or whether this is more of an ethical issue.
October 3rd, 2011 | 8:49 pm
When public schools teach ideological material as fact, it damages itself and ruins its own credibility and legitimacy.
Schools should restrict themselves to teaching only that which is accepted as fact, and should refrain from teaching controversial material. The younger the student, the more important this is.
Ultimately, teachers and administrators have a choice: they may choose their political agenda, or they may have a politically neutral space where everyone is equally required to leave their politics at the door.
Teachers and administrators have mostly chosen to opt for their own political agenda over the well-being and unity that would result from true political neutrality. Then they hide behind the argument (lie) that it is those who object to the highly ideological material being taught who are the ones dragging politics into the classroom.
October 4th, 2011 | 5:22 am
I agree with the above statement;
“Schools should restrict themselves to teaching only that which is accepted as fact, and should refrain from teaching controversial material. The younger the student, the more important this is.”
Even if it is that important it should be done with permission from the said student’s parents.
October 4th, 2011 | 8:59 am
“Where the ad exceeded the bounds of civil discourse was in its tone and manipulative use of a picture of young girl; in the suggestion that such teaching “corrupts” children, with everything that such a charge implies; and in its singling out of groups of people with whose sexuality the group disagrees.”
If the ICV believe that such teaching corrupts children, there is nothing uncivil about their pronouncement. It is no different than saying that promoting pornography to children corrupts them.
Merely stating that an ideological material corrupts children (or adults or any other group) does not entail incivility. It is an expression of criticism and disagreement, which is one of the most fundamental cornerstones of democracy.
If one does not agree with the sexual ideology or behavior of a group of people, one has the right to speak about it in private and in public. The mere expression of this criticism in no way entails incivility.
The suppression of the ad is thus clearly ideological censorship and the violation of the group’s freedom of speech, disguised as correcting some absurd and false notion of incivility.
October 4th, 2011 | 9:20 am
Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report. The add starts with the line, “Don’t confuse me” with a picture of a cherubic little girl, who, if informed that transgendered people exist and are human beings with dignity, would surely be cast into an inescapable abyss of sexual deviance. The truth, according to the established consensus of medical experts, is that a child’s gender identity is firmly established by age 3, it is not a choice, and nothing, not even decades of parents insisting that their child is the opposite sex and dressing and treating them as such, can change that. The ad claims that teachers are forbidden to inform parents of Ontario’s LGBT-supportive curriculum, in order to give them the opportunity of opting their children out of the lessons. The actual curriculum text (which I pulled from Lifesite News, before anyone accuses me of liberal bias) states: “Should Schools Send Notes Or Permission Slips Home Before Starting Any Classroom Work About Curricular Issues That May Involve Discussions About Discrimination and Harassment?
No. The TDSB Equity Foundation Statement and Commitments to Equity Policy Implementation states that each school has a responsibility to education that reflects the diversity of its students and their life experiences. Singling out one group or topic area as too controversial, and depending
upon parent/guardian/caregiver discretion, shifts this responsibility from the school to the parents/ guardians/caregivers and fosters a poisoned environment contrary to the TDSB Human Rights Policy. Sending a school newsletter home at the beginning of each term is a best practice for keeping parents/guardians/caregivers informed of all upcoming equity topics in the classroom without having to single out one topic over the other.” The text specifically calls on teachers to inform parents of the curriculum, but just as parents cannot opt their children out of discussions of racial diversity and the civil rights movement, they cannot opt their children out of lessons that teach them that their gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered classmates have dignity and are worthy of respect; to allow it would give tacit approval to the idea that LGBT students are not as entitled to a safe and respectful learning environment as every other student. I know that that is exactly how most people reading my comment feel, but the Ontario government has decided to side with medical and educational experts rather than the self-flattering opinions of the ignorant. If this is really a violation of your rights, stop whining and sue them if you can. I doubt you will have standing to sue, however, since you cannot prove that you or anyone else is harmed by an LGBT inclusive education policy.
October 4th, 2011 | 12:44 pm
Nick writes: “The truth, according to the established consensus of medical experts, is that a child’s gender identity is firmly established by age 3, it is not a choice….”
Eugenicists and racists said the same thing about their ideology as well: scientifically proven by experts! Whenever a moral issue that depends on one’s philosophy of man is thought to be “answerable” via science, all sorts of mischief occurs, not to mention grandiose and inflated claims of b*llsh**.
October 4th, 2011 | 12:53 pm
“a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report”
Like the suggestion that most people here think that “LGBT students are not as entitled to a safe and respectful learning environment as every other student”? What I think people are actually uncomfortable with is the idea that the state should take it upon itself to teach children that, among other things, mommies and daddies are interchangable and expendable and that sexuality has no higher purpose than giving pleasure, with the implication that anyone who thinks otherwise is an irrational bigot.
October 4th, 2011 | 2:25 pm
When you oppose the same protections for LGBT students that EVERY OTHER STUDENT has (protection from discrimination on the basis of race, religion,and gender is provided in every jurisdiction in the US and Canada) I think a reasonable person might conclude, logically, that you do not think Gay students deserve the same protections that every other student receives. But you’re right, I guess a reasoned judgment – based on verifiable evidence – is no different than a knee-jerk assumption that LGBT children are dangerous and “normal” children need to be protected from knowledge of their existence or the idea that they are equal human beings. Thanks for setting me straight.
October 4th, 2011 | 2:39 pm
Blake –
Accepted by whom?
Who decides what’s ‘controversial’?
October 4th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
Part of the Canadian curriculum which parents CANNOT opt out of:
Activities for junior kindergarten to Grade 3 include a discussion aimed at convincing students of the importance of participating in Toronto’s annual Pride Parade. Though billed as “family-friendly,” the event has often been labeled a “sex parade,” as it regularly features people walking down the streets semi-nude or completely naked, and homosexuals engaging in public sex acts.
The young students read “Gloria Goes to Gay Pride”, teachers are asked to bring in photos from the parade, and the students are encouraged to make posters for the school board’s parade float.
Other books recommended for JK-3 include “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “King & King & Family”.
In grades 4-6, teachers are encouraged to bring in the raunchy homosexual newspaper Xtra!, which is known for featuring prominent ads with naked men, as part of an activity on stereotyping in the media. Another activity has students develop an “action plan” to challenge “homophobic attitudes” in their school.
By grade 7, students are engaging in an activity designed to question the notion that homosexuality is a “choice”, and another has students running surveys to assess the “heterosexist/homophobia temperature” of their school and then formulating an action plan to challenge identified “inequities”. In the end, students are encouraged to organize school-wide activities to raise awareness of “homophobia”.
We can see by the curriculum just how much freedom for debate exists in this horrendous fanatical climate in Canadian schools regarding the ideological underpinnings of its sexual prescriptions.
Nick:
“Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report. The add starts with the line, “Don’t confuse me” with a picture of a cherubic little girl, who, if informed that transgendered people exist and are human beings with dignity, would surely be cast into an inescapable abyss of sexual deviance.”
The above is a malicious, false, and defamatory statement about the message in the ad.
“When you oppose the same protections for LGBT students that EVERY OTHER STUDENT has (protection from discrimination on the basis of race, religion,and gender is provided in every jurisdiction in the US and Canada)”
Freedom of speech for religious/conservative viewpoints is certainly not protected in Canada, for students or for adults. Right now you are the one opposing the same fundamental rights for other citizens, because you don’t agree with their religion/politics.
“Who decides what’s ‘controversial’?”
The first question to ask is who decides which groups are allowed fundamental rights in Canada and which are not. Obviously the state, driven by homosexual activists, has determined that conservative groups are second-class citizens, with no rights to freedom of speech, nor any rights as citizens to decide what sexual ideology they will teach their children.
“LGBT children are dangerous”
Especially the five-year old lesbians and homosexuals. Question to second-grader in the Canadian school system: When did you discover you were a lesbian? In junior kindergarten.
Steadfast political and legal action is required, if conservatives in Canada want to be treated as citizens.
October 4th, 2011 | 11:54 pm
Schools should restrict themselves to teaching only that which is accepted as fact,
Accepted by whom?
and should refrain from teaching controversial material.
Who decides what’s ‘controversial’?
It’s really not very hard to determine what’s not controversial, to those who are sincerely interested in building community.
What is lacking is the good faith. The people in the public schools do not want to build community. They are there to proselytize other peoples’ children. They are not there to help the children, but to use them. Their real goal is to advance their ideological agenda.
This is perhaps the biggest reason why public schools have failed.
October 5th, 2011 | 10:40 am
Blake –
You didn’t answer my question, I note. Let’s assume you are sincerely interested in building community. Can you give me some examples of things that aren’t controversial?
How about evolution? The age of the universe? Vaccine effectiveness and side-effects? The origins, stability, and variability of sexual attraction? The effectiveness of various political and economic policies?
October 5th, 2011 | 11:11 am
“Schools should restrict themselves to teaching only that which is accepted as fact,”
Below is a fact, but it seems it was not included in the Canadian curriculum. I wonder why?
“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. ”
Why talk about a “safe and respectful” environment when it only means an environment full of deceit and lies about reality, where the truth cannot be told to students about various issues related to homosexuality and bisexuality?
If the Canadian curriculum teaches “King and King and family,” it should also teach “King and King and John and Andy and Melissa and Rodney and Milton and Fred and Bob” and how King got Rodney and Milton sick and how Fred and Bob got Andy and Melissa sick.
Below is another fact, but I also don’t see it in the Canadian school books:
‘HPV has been shown to increase a man’s chances of contracting penile and anal cancer, particularly for gay males. Men who have sex with men are about 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than straight men, according to the CDC.
“These are relatively rare cancers,” said Debbie Saslow, director of breast and gynecologic cancer programs for the American Cancer Society. “However, for men who have sex with other men, their risk is significantly higher than the general population.”‘
Why doesn’t the Canadian government teach youngsters about how damaging homosexuality is, in more ways than one?
Nick said: “but the Ontario government has decided to side with medical and educational experts rather than the self-flattering opinions of the ignorant.”
It seems to me that homosexuals and the alphabet soup people are quite ignorant about what the medical experts have to say about homosexuality and diseases.
Is it because homosexuals have nothing but self-flattering opinions of their own ignorant selves? Or is it because the Ontario government is ignorant about respective health issues?
I think it is an absolute priority to inform young (and old) about unhealthy, at-risk attitudes and behaviors. Obviously the Ontario government labors in the opposite direction, to keep kids in the dark.
It’s all for the children, of course.
October 5th, 2011 | 12:56 pm
Johnson – Should we include the fact that lesbianism is safer for women than heterosexuality by the same measure? (For example, the number of documented cases of female-to-female HIV transmission is literally in the single digits. That is – ahem – not the case for male-to-female transmission.)
October 5th, 2011 | 1:45 pm
The first question to ask is who decides which groups are allowed fundamental rights in Canada and which are not.
No, the question is more like, which groups are allowed to decide what is a fundamental right and what is not.
There’s a big difference.
There is no “right” to define what is true for everyone. Nobody – not Christians, not secular humanists, not gays – nobody is welcome to define reality itself in ways that require a leap of faith.
What gays and those who can’t accept their biological gender want is no less than the right to force their own beliefs on the rest of us – in ways that are not provable or demonstrable, but require faith, and furthermore define faith in a way that is compatible with only one religion – the religion of the Enlightenment, which pretends to be above religion most of the time, but is the same set of beliefs found in the religion “Unitarian Universalism” (which is what the same group of people calls themselves when they do want the recognized benefits of religion – because, you see, they play it both ways, even though that’s not very honest).
You do not have the right to tell me what it means to be a family. Family means what it has always meant: it is a group of people bound by kinship bonds. Adoption is only legitimate when it is about what is best for the child. Therefore, gays can never form a family: there is no way for them to become a family that does not involve exploiting the child they are using to create the illusion of family-hood. It is not real, and hence nobody has the right to force anyone to accept it as true, because truth is a basic fundamental right.
Which is the difference between the real civil rights movement vs. this one. Real civil rights rely on getting rid of denial – not coercing it.
Likewise, nobody can tell me or my child that it is “bigotry” to recognize marriage as being linked to procreation. You can’t say that because truth has value – and is a more fundamental right than the right to play out a lie as a fantasy.
And, likewise, nobody can tell me that a child who is a boy, is not a boy. Children naturally come in three states: boy, girl, and ambiguous. A boy can’t be a girl – it makes nonsense of the words, because gender is a biological category, not an emotional state.
Your method requires a hierarchy of people. Gays outrank white hetero people, so in a contest of wills, gays get what they want. Blacks outrank gays, so in a contest of wills, black beats gay. Rock paper scissors. But that is not civil rights – that is the very antithesis of what true civil rights is all about. True civil rights is about equality, not creating hierarchy.
Real civil rights is about recognizing the importance of what people really need – and it fails altogether when some people are allowed to confuse “want” with “need”.
Whenever you hear someone saying that gay children “need” this or that because otherwise they’ll kill themselves, be aware that psychologists have long classified this tactic as a form of bullying when anyone not protected by PC does it. If your soon-to-be ex spouse says “come back to me or else I’ll kill myself”, they class that as “domestic violence”.
The right to be discriminated against based on gender does not include the right to pick and choose which gender you would like to be. Gender is a biological fact: if you are born unambiguously male, then you are male. If you don’t like being male, you will be ambiguous – not female. You will never be unambiguously female. And no amount of legislation will ever make people like or feel comfortable around people who advertise their ambiguous gender. You can legislate that people are required to refrain from abuse, and you are within your rights to teach children that all people must be treated with kindness and respect – but you step over the line when you start teaching your own ideology as if it were fact, and you lose credibility when you do so – first, from those who refuse to play along with you, then later, from those who accepted what you are saying as if it were fact, and realize later that it was only opinion.
Using a public school as a platform for ideology is an abuse of authority, and people who do it lose respect because they are a type of petty thief. People who proselytize in school – whether it’s for the left or for the right – do not deserve respect, and must be resisted, because they are destroying the ability of the school to do what it was actually designed for (which was presumably giving the kids the education they need to succeed in the real world – not the education they need to be good little lockstep voters for *your* political party).
October 5th, 2011 | 1:47 pm
You didn’t answer my question, I note. Let’s assume you are sincerely interested in building community. Can you give me some examples of things that aren’t controversial?
I didn’t answer your question because I don’t see the point in the fight you are trying to get going.
It’s not hard to know what is controversial, when there is good faith. It simply involves listening – if you can’t listen to your enemies with an open mind, then at least listen to your own side’s preachy lectures about Respect and Tolerance, only this time listen to them with not just an ear toward what they owe you, but also with an ear toward what you owe them.
October 5th, 2011 | 1:55 pm
How about evolution? The age of the universe? Vaccine effectiveness and side-effects? The origins, stability, and variability of sexual attraction? The effectiveness of various political and economic policies?
You might ask why you think it is “necessary” to teach these things.
When you do this, the answer becomes clear.
Most of what is controversial involves very questionable judgment re: why a thing must be taught. The schools are sometimes quite honest about this: the children need to be saved from their parents.
I once taught evolution to kids who weren’t mine. What I did was as follows: I taught the scientific side by presenting the evidence and offering a book. But I also taught the LIMITS of science – that science is frequently wrong, and that the reason it is most often wrong is because it is missing variables and/or because it makes assumptions, and that there are assumptions in the theory of evolution. And this is why science is not able to tell us about metaphysics – because science can only tell us about what is material, and is incapable of answering the question of WHETHER something is material. So if you’re a materialist, and share the assumptions of the scientists, then naturally you’re going to accept the theory of evolution wholeheartedly. But if you believe there is more than just the material world – if you believe there is a God, or there is such a thing as “spirit” – then you’re going to have to think about evolution, and what the evidence means.
I think I made a good case for each side. I think I did a good job of treating both sides with respect. I didn’t have to diss anyone, because I don’t have an axe to grind in the evolution debate – so I don’t need to push a particular agenda. And that is the key.
October 6th, 2011 | 2:40 pm
Johnson – Should we include the fact that lesbianism is safer for women than heterosexuality by the same measure?
Ray,
Which measure are you referring to?
If you are going to do that kind of comparison, an adult who has sex with a child has zero chance of getting an STD, so even safer by your “standards!”
As long as you include in the curriculum that homosexuality is disoriented and dysfunctional, I think little else matters.
You also need to include that heterosexual youngsters who do not engage in sex do not get STDs or AIDS. The rate is actually zero as far as sexual activity transmission is concerned. Did the Canadian curriculum think of the safety of the kids in this respect? I gather not.
Why are liberals pushing and encouraging children to engage in behaviors which raise their chances of having cancer almost 20-fold, along with a long list of STDs, some of which are incurable?
Doesn’t it strike you as a bit monstrous?
If there was a particular soda on the market that increased the rates of stomach cancer by 20 times, would you encourage your children to drink it? Would you say this soda was just as good as the other sodas which didn’t cause cancer like that?
The left is so blinded by its warped promotion of homosexuality that not even the safety of children matter to them.
October 6th, 2011 | 8:25 pm
Why are liberals pushing and encouraging children to engage in behaviors which raise their chances of having cancer almost 20-fold, along with a long list of STDs, some of which are incurable?
I wish this question weren’t rhetorical.
The secular worship of all things sexual has gotten so out of hand, I really wish someone could answer the question.
Just why are humanists so preoccupied – obsessed – with sex, and specifically with the desire to obliterate all sexual boundaries, that they are quite literally willing to sacrifice things of value – like “innocence” or even “the safety and well-being of children”?
October 7th, 2011 | 9:14 am
Johnson –
Which may indicate a problem with measuring sexual activity solely by that standard – and that seems to be your key argument against homosexuality, no?
That depends a great deal on what the purpose – or purposes – of sexuality are. And on the nature(s) and cause(s) of homosexual attraction. All areas of disagreement.
Absolutely.
Which, of course, is the central issue. So far as I can see, ‘liberals’ aren’t – or at least, certainly don’t see themselves as – “pushing and encouraging children to engage in behaviors”. They disagree about the way to discourage kids (e.g. not ‘fearmongering’) and attempting to minimize the damage if kids do so.
You can argue they are mistaken on tactics or misguided. But demonizing is, well, not likely to be persuasive. You certainly don’t pay more attention when ‘liberals’ demonize conservatives, right?
October 7th, 2011 | 11:26 am
Which, of course, is the central issue. So far as I can see, ‘liberals’ aren’t – or at least, certainly don’t see themselves as – “pushing and encouraging children to engage in behaviors”. They disagree about the way to discourage kids (e.g. not ‘fearmongering’) and attempting to minimize the damage if kids do so.
Liberals know exactly what they are doing.
They do not hand out condoms to kids who are below the age of consent because they want to protect kids from inappropriate sexual contact.
Liberals believe the ends justify the means. They believe that when their own beliefs, desires, and wishes are important, it justifies doing things that are recognized as evil when other people do them.
The great invention of the Enlightenment was a philosophy that is capable of getting around the “golden rule” – do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Every other religion in the world has some variation of this belief, but the Enlightenment-faith is popular precisely because it teaches that if you’re “right” – if you’re Enlightened – you can do unto others precisely what you would not want those people doing to you. Because you’re special.
This is why liberals are capable of being horrified at the very thought of people of other faiths proselytizing their children, while they unabashedly seek to use public schools to force their beliefs on other peoples’ children – even to the point of handing out condoms and openly encouraging sexual behaviors among children. They don’t care about the children. They care about their ideology, and children are just a thing to use.
If you examine prominent liberal public statements and behaviors, you find they are consistently outraged at the idea of a child having underaged sexual contact with a conservative, but are fully capable of justifying underaged sex when the predators are liberals – especially when they are liberals enacting an agenda.
You would think they would lower the age of consent to 11, if they are going to be handing out condoms to 11 year old kids. Clearly they are articulating that 11 year old kids are to be the ones charged with the decision of whether to engage in sexual acts or not – since they are doing everything in their power to shut out the parents and leave the decision in the hands of the 11 year old kids. But they won’t do that because they are only in favor of 11 year olds having sex when it suits them. If that same 11 year old had sex with a Republican – or even a Republican’s child, or nephew, or pastor, or pastor’s son – they would insist that 11 year old is too young to enter into a decision.
They just want the teacher, not the parent, to be the one with the right to decide. But, of course, they don’t want the teacher to be stuck with the responsibility that normally goes hand-in-hand with the right.
They want to break the relationship between rights and responsibilities – so that they get the rights while the parents get stuck with the responsibilities.
Which is what liberals do. Decisions for you, costs for us. The same teachers encouraging sex are not going to pay for the unwanted pregnancies – horrors no.
Because, of course, if handing out condoms worked, there would be fewer teen pregnancies now than there were in 1950.
October 7th, 2011 | 5:13 pm
Johnson – If you are going to do that kind of comparison, an adult who has sex with a child has zero chance of getting an STD, so even safer by your “standards!”
Ray – Which may indicate a problem with measuring sexual activity solely by that standard – and that seems to be your key argument against homosexuality, no?
Why would measuring how much cancer a type of soda causes be a problem? I don’t follow your logic.
In what way is it a problem to educate children that male homosexuality will increase their chances of getting cancer by 20 times?
Children have a fundamental right to know what attitudes and behaviors will cause them harm. Lying to them like the Canadian curriculum does is neither making their environment safe nor is it being respectful to them.
“That depends a great deal on what the purpose – or purposes – of sexuality are. And on the nature(s) and cause(s) of homosexual attraction. All areas of disagreement.”
I don’t follow your argument above either. Are you saying that if there is a liberal perspective that disagrees with a conservative one about anything in society that only the liberal perspective must be enforced in schools?
This is what is being done in Canada and in the US.
‘liberals certainly don’t see themselves as – “pushing and encouraging children to engage in behaviors”.’
You should watch MTV one of these days…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact