La Joie de Vivre 2:8 — The Trouble with Sex Education

by Dawn Stefanowicz    Saturday, March 15, 2014

Since the mid-nineties, I have investigated and addressed various sex education policies. As a parent myself and with my own childhood largely seasoned with various GLBT dogmas, I do not trust so-called “experts” who introduce comprehensive sex education a la carte or muddled inside another creatively-named education strategy to catch parents unaware. Regrettably, most parents do not understand how the dark veils of equity, inclusive, diversity, and other positive-sounding terminology, using the nondiscrimination terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” mask the state’s plan to control our children’s minds and attitudes. As parents, we better be concerned about our children’s privacy, speech, and religious freedoms, and for all intents and purposes, our own.

Think about it this way. The application of school policies travel with your children and their friends in what is considered the “school climate.” “School climate” is not limited to school buildings and land, school buses, field trips, places where students hang out to eat and talk with friends (cafeterias, cafes, malls, and street corners), and research locales for school projects (libraries, workplaces, and home).

School education policies associated with the “school climate” also travel and apply to virtual environments which your children have access to. Such devices as computers, laptops, flash drives, cell phones, I-pods, and other personal devices used to upload/download text messages, music, and pictures and chat on social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, and private e-mail accounts) are not off limits to the “school climate” policies and policing thereof. No matter where these devices are carried to or stowed—even in your home or ethnic or faith communities– the “school climate” policies encroach into all facets of your children’s lives. As a model, you probably have heard of anti-bullying and safe school policies. As you look closely at these seemingly-good sounding policies, you will see that virtual environments can be policed for any bullying and unacceptable beliefs and opinions in regards to sexual orientation and gender identity. Now, do not get me wrong. I am not endorsing name-calling and hurtful words. Rather, I believe in freedom of opinion and speech where we publicly exercise our moral consciences and beliefs and opinions without fear of reprimand. Limitations are already in place in various ways as we shall see.

Let us take a look at what comprehensive sex education does. It mandates elimination of traditional morals, religious beliefs, and encourages children and youth to welcome explicit sexuality, diverse sexual orientations and gender identity expressions within the classroom and in their personal lives. Mention of moral boundaries and sexually transmitted diseases in the classroom is discouraged. Kinsey-inspired ideals are behind comprehensive sex education and are bad for students’ health because they increase STI’s, adolescent mental health issues, and unwed motherhood poverty in all societies. Comprehensive sex education assumes childhood and youth sexual experimentation. When contraception and abortion are offered as alternatives, chastity is not expected.

Comprehensive sex education offers no protection for parental rights; and there is no provision for parents to opt their children out of lessons, classrooms, and general assembly programs which teach explicit sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity as normal. One of the backers of global sex education is UNFPA which demands a redefinition of gender to include the “spectrum of gender identities,” “comprehensive sexuality education” and “safe abortion.” Another backer is UNESCO…

Behind UNFPA and UNESCO, are the Yogyakarta Principles which are international guiding principles which special interest groups developed in 2006 and plan on forcing on all educational environments globally. See a brief on the Yogyakarta Principles here by Family Watch International.

A UN initiative, The Yogyakarta Principles, the “Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” and other UN global initiatives have far reaching implications for a nation’s sovereignty if any of its principles are adopted through legislation.

The World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization, in conjunction with the World Association for Sexology express that to ensure the development of healthy sexuality in human beings and societies, sexual rights must be recognized, respected and exercised, promoted and defended by all societies through this governing framework. Thus, this plan presupposes that by teaching “safe” sex practices, offering contraception, promoting abortion, and reducing sexual violence (by teaching sexual consent), these lessons will eradicate major societal problems.

Within the globalist agenda, distinct gender roles are seen as bad and discriminatory. This puts young people at risk of not valuing their own gender as represented in manhood and womanhood. Today, we know male and female brains, hormones, genetics, and anatomy are different. Yet, there are special interest groups pretending this isn’t so. Children benefit from the unique and complementary qualities fathering and mothering bring. Gender roles, especially associated with mothering and fathering, are tied to biology and are not social constructs. However, if the globalists have their way, gender will be treated as only a social construct, teaching that a young boy can grow up to be a “Mom.” Therefore, same-sex and transsexual parents, alternative marriages, and various family forms are presented as normal and healthy in all materials to young children within the classroom. At the same time, man-woman married couples are marginalized and eliminated.

Forcing each child to be indoctrinated with comprehensive sex education and the “human right” to all forms of sexual and gender “diversity” at a time when children and youth are undergoing huge physical, hormonal, emotional, psychological, and social changes is unconscionable. Meanwhile, no student or school staff or parent is permitted to speak against any form of sexuality or gender identity they disagree with.

Using sexual orientation and gender identity terms causes children to question their innocent same-sex play and labels children’s developing sexuality prematurely. When children and youth have particular feelings, it is not compassionate to label children’s developing sexuality and gender identity with social and political terminology such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual. However, some schools actually label these children and permit them to use washrooms and change rooms according to their feelings and not their biological gender at birth. Furthermore, some schools provide these children with counseling to accept their feelings rather than to remove their gender confusion. As an healthy alternative, there are a number of researchers, medical doctors, and therapists who are compassionate towards youth who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity. Parents, educators, and students can find more helpful information at Facts About Youth .

Often, special interest groups are allowed into schools to set up their programs under the banner of anti-bullying, safe schools’ policies and through Gay-Straight Alliances. In reality, these policies provide a direct legal entranceway for indoctrination, desensitization, personal and political recruitment of our vulnerable children by special interest groups within our schools while silencing all students, teachers, administrators, and parents who oppose the “sexual” rights or “human rights” agenda.”

Basically, teachers receive sensitivity training and are taught how to be “thought” police. Teachers and other school staff police speech and report anyone who holds up traditional marriage, speaks against particular sexual acts, or supports traditional gender roles. This could lead to the introduction of hate crimes where particular teachers are reported to the authorities and penalized for committing a “hate” crime. Comprehensive sex education does not allow for any form of discriminatory speech such as expressing opposition to homosexual conduct, same-sex marriage and parenting, or transsexual dress by school administrators, teachers, students, parents, or other staff.

Comprehensive sex education permeates and encompasses all policies, implementation guidelines, strategies, curriculum materials, grade levels, classrooms, and the “school climate.” As well, families are not off limits to supervision by teachers and administrators who are watching for any “abuse” of children. Could it be that parental moral and religious instruction around sexuality and gender will be considered abusive and punishable and children will be removed from their homes because of complaints?

Dawn Stefanowicz is the author of Out from Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. She was one of the first to come forward as the child of gay parents, being the daughter of a gay man.

Source: English Manif