News

MUST-READ: Mandatory curriculum in Ontario schools promotes homosexuality

3 Comments
Political Map of Canada

Story here from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

The Ministry [of Education] put out its new Health and Physical Education curriculum for grades 1 to 8 in January, and a spokesperson has confirmed to LifeSiteNews (LSN) that the new curriculum will be mandatory for all schools, Catholic and public, in September 2010.  The high school curriculum will be released this spring, and will be mandatory as of September 2011.  At this point, it is unclear, however, whether Catholic schools are to be forced into teaching elements that violate Catholic teaching.

The new curriculum, replacing a previous version from 1998, aligns with the Ministry’s campaign to promote “equity and inclusive education” in Ontario’s schools, which includes the advancement of homosexualism and transgenderism.  A notable aspect of the curriculum’s revision is the attempt to instil a sense that homosexuality and transgenderism are perfectly normal.

[…]Students begin to explore “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in grade 3, as part of an expectation to appreciate “invisible differences” in others.  A desired response has the eight-year-old student recognizing that “some [families] have two mothers or two fathers.”

In grade 5, a student is expected to recognize that “things I cannot control include … personal characteristics such as … my gender identity [and] sexual orientation.”

Grade 7s are expected to be taught about “using condoms consistently if and when a person becomes sexually active.”

One of main reasons why I want to get married is so that I can raise children to have a relationship with God and to make a difference in the world for him. I have had that view since I started working in my teens, often working multiple jobs at the same time – and I mean white collar jobs in the private and public sectors, right through undergraduate university. And all this so that I could buy my wife and children everything that would help them to serve God as much as they wanted to, e.g. – if my wife wanted to be a stay-at-home mom and to homeschool, no problem.

Now suppose a law like that is passed here in the United States and applies to public and private schools. How would I then look on the viability of marriage and child-raising then? My children, (all children, really), would be taught anti-Christian views of sex for a good deal of their academic life before going to college where drunken hook-up sex abounds. And this indoctrination would be at my expense, since public school teachers are paid out of taxes I have to pay. And early sexual activity would predispose my children away from Christian faith.

Do you think that news stories like this affect my plans to marry? They certainly do. I think liberal voters need to get serious about asking themselves exactly what makes men interested in marriage and parenting in the first place. Speaking for myself, I want to raise children who share my values and worldview and who serve God effectively when I am gone. When government forces its anti-Christian views on impressionable young children, that’s a disincentive for responsible men to marry.

(Don’t say homeschooling, the left doesn’t like homeschooling)

It’s everywhere in Canada

By the way, Jennifer Roback Morse recently had a scary post about even worse laws governing schools in Quebec.

Excerpt:

The news from Quebec is not encouraging for those who love liberty. In their new Quebec Policy Against Homophobia: Moving Together toward social equality, Provincial government of Quebec just gave itself permission to take all necessary steps to wipe out, not just “homophobia,” but also “heterosexism.”

And it happens in British Columbia, too.

Excerpt:

In response to a case filed with the Human Rights Tribunal in 1999 by gay couple Murray and Peter Corren, the BC government decided last year to introduce new curricula from Kindergarten to Grade 12 that would be “inclusive” and homosexual-friendly. The pro-gay courses may become mandatory with provisions for barring parents from opting out or opting for an alternative course (see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/06060101.html).

Today, the BC Ministry of Education released the draft overview for the new Grade 12 Social Justice pilot course, which is the first course to come out of the agreement with Murray and Peter Corren.

Comments will be strictly moderated. You know why.

Commentary

Melanie Phillips has a radical plan to stop the breakdown of marriages

2 Comments

From the UK Daily Mail.

Here’s the problem:

Devastating new research by sociologist Geoff Dench shows that not only is one in four mothers single, but more than half of such mothers have never lived with a man at all and are choosing to live alone on state benefits.

[…]Back in the mists of time … relationships between men and women were based on a bargain between the sexes which, although never stated openly, everyone accepted as a given.

Women realised they needed the father of their children to stick around to help bring them up.

In turn, men committed themselves to the mothers of their children on the basis that they could trust they were indeed the father because the woman was sexually faithful.

Today, this bargain has been all but destroyed. A number of factors have conspired to make women and girls think they can go it alone without men.

The first has been that so many women work and are therefore economically independent. Next was the sexual revolution which saw women becoming as sexually free as men.

In short order, any stigma over having babies out of wedlock was abolished. Then there was the collapse of manufacturing industry, which deprived many boys of the job prospects which once made them an attractive, marriageable proposition.

Finally, the coup de grace was administered by welfare benefits to single mothers which enabled them to live without the support of their babies’ fathers.

The result of all this was that many women and girls decided they no longer needed their children’s fathers to be part of the family unit.

This has given rise to an increasing number of women-only households where fathers have been written out of the family script for three or four generations or more.

The consequences of such family disintegration – as is now indisputable – are in general catastrophic for both individuals and for society.

This problem will not be cracked, however, unless women come to believe once again that their interests lie in attracting one man to father their children and then stick with them. Which is where my proposal of a Man Benefit comes in.

Click here to find out what the “Man Benefit” is. This is a fine article, and every man and woman who wants to understand how big government government causes the destruction of the family should read it. Then forward it to all of your friends. I think that we have a problem today where we just don’t think intelligently about what it takes to have a good marriage. Does government help children to grow up in stable homes, or does government make it more likely for children to grow up in a broken home? What does the evidence say?

This column by Stephen Baskerville is a nice follow-up to Melanie’s article.

News

How good are politicians at projecting the costs of social programs?

1 Comment

From Big Government. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Look back at when Medicare was first created:

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.

In 2007, total Medicare spending was $431 billion! That isn’t even close to the costs predicted in 1965. Why do we act like the numbers coming out of Congress and the CBO have any basis in reality?

The predictions for Medicaid were just as wrong:

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid – the joint federal-state health care program for the poor – would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.

The list goes on. The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress.

This is always good thing to remember when people try to pass massive new programs – and this goes for Republicans too, e.g. – Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit. Blech!