Ontario's Radical Sex Ed Curriculum

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Pr. Jae said:
Thank you Nancy for your carefully written answer. The reason I asked is, you wrote that you told the children whose thinking was along the lines of the new curriculum that their thinking was correct. Logically then, it follows that you would tell a child whose thinking was not as open-minded that they are in the wrong. Correct Nancy?
Click to expand...
What are you suggesting and what are you driving at Jae????
 
Seeler said:
I'm not speaking for Nancy here, but trying to remember what it was like when I was in the classroom. I remember a child of about seven challenging me during a science lesson. I acknowledged his feelings, agreed that some people believed what he had said, and went on with my lesson (I believe we were talking about erosion - how mountains can be worn down and soil washed away - it was a long time ago.) I didn't contradict him or indicate in any way that he was not entitled to his beliefs - but at the same time, I didn't agree with them or support them.
Click to expand...
In that situation, you can acknowledge his feelings about the timeline of, say, the Grand Canyon, but you can still point out that all the evidence points to something other than what he has been told. Because that's the truth.


Seeler said:
So - I'm trying to imagine the question has come up. Someone mentions a family that has two daddies. Someone else says, 'That's impossible. Everybody has one daddy and one mommy.' Surely in a modern classroom there will be children who are being raised by a single parent. So we talk about different kinds of families. Susie lives one week with Mommy and the next week with Daddy and his girlfriend. David lives with his Dad. Janet is being raised by her grandmother. Andrew knows that he is adopted
'But' the one child insists, 'that's not the way it should be. Everybody has one daddy and one mommy and they all live together.'
"Why? Isn't the important thing that people in the family love each other? Take care of each other? Make your lunch? Comb your hair? Pick you up after school? Take you skiing? or to ballet class?"
The point of my lesson would be that all children deserve loving families, but those families can have different make up and dynamics. Big family or just mommy&me; multi-generational; blended; traditional; and yes, some families have two daddies or two mommys.

Probably that one kid will go home with questions. Let his parents reinforce what they have taught him, or ask questions and think about it. And if they have questions or concerns let them make an appointment to see me to discuss this further.
Click to expand...
And that's perfect. The erosion question is about established facts, and while people can have "feelings" about what happened, those are not observable facts. In this situation, when the conversation goes to same sex parents, the observable fact is that kids are perfectly happy with same sex parents, and if anything, any unhappiness they experience is often caused by children of religious parents taunting them.
 
Pr. Jae said:
Thank you Nancy for your carefully written answer. The reason I asked is, you wrote that you told the children whose thinking was along the lines of the new curriculum that their thinking was correct. Logically then, it follows that you would tell a child whose thinking was not as open-minded that they are in the wrong. Correct Nancy?
Click to expand...
Again, as you have observed I am not Nancy, but I think that's correct. If a kid says that same sex parents are wrong, you tell them they are perfectly fine, and explain why they are. That they are still two people who love each other very much, and love their children just as much as any other set of parents, and want to do the best for their children. So any thinking that same sex parents are somehow "disordered" or "incorrect" is itself, demonstrably incorrect and leads to needless bullying, and will not be tolerated in a school setting.
 
Nancy said:
When students voice opinions that I might personally have a hard time with (the no God one comes up a fair bit), I listen respectfully because those students have a right to share their opinions, while also recognizing that others may have different opinions. It does not necessarily need to lead to hatred!
Click to expand...
Nancy, what grade did you say you taught? Wasn't it grade 2? I think that's pretty awesome that some kids are already questioning the existence of God, and thinking critically about it. This is a crucial time in a child's development for forming ideas about the world, and it's around this time that many kids just accept that God exists and don't question that line of thought again for many years.

My grade 2 daughter has been around many religious kids, and especially when Carter died, they tried to use those typical "He's in a better place" and "It was God's will" lines that get mindlessly trotted out. And when I was listening in, she would ask, "Why do you believe in a God? I don't believe in him." And it stopped these religious kids in their tracks. You could see the wheels spinning. Why did they believe? Because someone told them?

[Spoiler Alert] Remember, these are kids who recently found out that Santa was a story. My daughter loves all the religious holidays. She knows more about these holidays than I ever have, and she respects religion. She's not like me that way. But she doesn't believe, and the extremely impressive thing is, she is learning how to ask questions and evaluate the answers to determine what she believes and what she doesn't. And it is these questions asked by my daughter and other children, even while perfectly respectful in tone and wording, that is going to kick the s**t out of religious beliefs in even pre-teen kids.
 
I'm curious what everyone thinks about known child pornographer, Benjamin Levin, the deputy education minister in 2010 having written the new curriculum under his direction in 2010? The 2015 version, is pretty much the same.

Just wondering if anyone thinks this affects anything that was written?
 
Waterfall said:
I'm curious what everyone thinks about known child pornographer, Benjamin Levin, the deputy education minister in 2010 having written the new curriculum under his direction in 2010? The 2015 version, is pretty much the same.

Just wondering if anyone thinks this affects anything that was written?
Click to expand...
Anytime anything is written the biases of the author(s) can be seen therein in one way or another.
 
We are hearing that said by opponents a lot but, really, unless they can produce some actual language in the curriculum that is, or seems, designed to promote child sexual abuse rather than trying to counter it, I don't there's an argument there. You can't dismiss the entire policy because one of God know how many bureaucrats and political hacks touched that policy was a child pornographer. You need to specifically demonstrate that his illegal, harmful behaviour is actually reflected in the policy.
 
Waterfall said:
I'm curious what everyone thinks about known child pornographer, Benjamin Levin, the deputy education minister in 2010 having written the new curriculum under his direction in 2010? The 2015 version, is pretty much the same.
Click to expand...
Waterfall said:
Just wondering if anyone thinks this affects anything that was written?
Click to expand...
No. It's just something the religious nutcases can latch on to. Ben Levin is not, as it turns out, the person you want to leave your children alone with. Of course, the same could be said about a disturbing number of Catholic priests, and it's often Catholic groups complaining about Ben Levin.

So, one group with pedophiles in their midst, is complaining about the work of another group with a child pornographer in its midst.

End of the day, the only real concern should be the curriculum. If someone can point out how the curriculum is pro-child pornography, that would be something. They can't. All they can do is point at Ben Levin and and then point at the curriculum and make scary noises.
 
chansen said:
No. It's just something the religious nutcases can latch on to. Ben Levin is not, as it turns out, the person you want to leave your children alone with. Of course, the same could be said about a disturbing number of Catholic priests, and it's often Catholic groups complaining about Ben Levin.

So, one group with pedophiles in their midst, is complaining about the work of another group with a child pornographer in its midst.

End of the day, the only real concern should be the curriculum. If someone can point out how the curriculum is pro-child pornography, that would be something. They can't. All they can do is point at Ben Levin and and then point at the curriculum and make scary noises.
Click to expand...
Catholic priests didn't have a hand in writing the new sex-ed curriculum that will soon be instilled in our children.
 
Once again, it's the coverup that makes it worse. But we've been all over this. Ben Levin was convicted (I think) of child pornography. The Catholic Church, as we've found out, has been protecting pedophiles. The Catholic Church is having fits about new sex ed curriculum in Ontario, and one of the reasons they point to, is one of the contributors to the curriculum is a child pornographer. Pot, meet kettle.

If there is something in the curriculum they can attack, let them attack that. This curriculum is long overdue, and the only reason it wasn't implemented a couple of years ago, is opposition from religious groups. This is curriculum that could help young children understand that what pedophiles do to them is wrong. If you like possible conspiracies, the Catholic Church opposing a curriculum that could expose pedophiles is an obvious one.
 
Given the dishonesty employed by the Campaign Life Coalition in opposing the new curriculum I cannot say Ben Levin's participation concerns me.

Levin had been charged and arrested in 2013 the new curriculum did not role out until February 2015. Anyone think that the Liberal Government did not give this curriculum closer scrutiny as a result?

And let's be clear. The reason why this has been made an issue is NOT because it has been proven that Levin wrote the curriculum and designed it to groom children. The reason why this has been made an issue is because CLC will flat out lie to get their way and poisoning the opposition is a dirty trick they will use. There is nothing dishonest that they would not justify if they felt it would win them their argument.

What's next? OISE is a pedophile ring? University of Ottawa, Harvard and University of Manitoba are pedophile breeding grounds?

Because CLC has proven themselves to be liars I wouldn't trust any of their claims.
 
chansen said:
Once again, it's the coverup that makes it worse. But we've been all over this. Ben Levin was convicted (I think) of child pornography. The Catholic Church, as we've found out, has been protecting pedophiles. The Catholic Church is having fits about new sex ed curriculum in Ontario, and one of the reasons they point to, is one of the contributors to the curriculum is a child pornographer. Pot, meet kettle.

If there is something in the curriculum they can attack, let them attack that. This curriculum is long overdue, and the only reason it wasn't implemented a couple of years ago, is opposition from religious groups. This is curriculum that could help young children understand that what pedophiles do to them is wrong. If you like possible conspiracies, the Catholic Church opposing a curriculum that could expose pedophiles is an obvious one.
Click to expand...
That being said - let's return to the question that was asked. Are the biases of the authors of the new curriculum seen in some way in that which they authored. The answer is yes. The creators are always reflected in their creation.
 
Pr. Jae said:
That being said - let's return to the question that was asked. Are the biases of the authors of the new curriculum seen in some way in that which they authored. The answer is yes. The creators are always reflected in their creation.
Click to expand...
If they started from scratch, would the curriculum come out any different? Sex educators remain positive about it. It is long overdue. The longer we wait, the more ignorant Ontario children are of their bodies and what others may try to do to their bodies.

If you want to help pedophiles, the best way is to prevent this curriculum from being implemented.
 
chansen said:
If they started from scratch, would the curriculum come out any different? Sex educators remain positive about it. It is long overdue. The longer we wait, the more ignorant Ontario children are of their bodies and what others may try to do to their bodies.

If you want to help pedophiles, the best way is to prevent this curriculum from being implemented.
Click to expand...
The best way to stop pedophilia is to foster school curriculum a pedophile had a hand in creating. A fascinating philosophy there chansen.
 
Not a pedophile. Ben Levin was convicted of child pornography. There is a difference.

And, again, no sex educators are scrambling to change anything. They are pleading to get this introduced into schools this September. I'm siding with the experts instead of the people who think their imaginary friend is against this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top