反对性教学大纲的进来看看
- 主题发起人 CHRIS88
- 开始时间
CFC马甲分析师
封禁用户
- 注册
- 2013-06-11
- 消息
- 298
- 荣誉分数
- 61
- 声望点数
- 38
a group of bitches! 怪不得同性恋合法，CFC那么多娘炮，原来管事者就是同性恋变态狂。Thu Mar 12, 2015 - 9:32 am EST
The heartbreaking sex-ed Premier Wynne gave her own children
By Pete Baklinski
Thu Mar 12, 2015 - 9:32 am EST
‘Younger children are easier to teach’: Sex radical wants B.C. to ape Ontario’s early sex ed
By Steve Weatherbe
Thu Mar 12, 2015 - 9:32 am EST
靠, 哥上学的的时候怎么没这么好的作业啊 ...
贵圈
政府都对党
- 注册
- 2014-10-21
- 消息
- 32,810
- 荣誉分数
- 6,140
- 声望点数
- 373
在确定这个事情的真假前。不好说什么，姑且认为是真的。
这就是我说过的。在一个还算保守的教纲下，都会遇到这样的解读，老师会根据他们的喜好，做出有相当偏差的教育。参考多伦多教育局的家庭作业。
新教纲本身已经很极端，到时候，教师们如何解读完全是他们的选择。孩子在接受更为极端洗脑之前，没人会咨询家长，甚至孩子洗脑之后，你都没机会知道。因为他们没有义务通知你今天的阅读内容。
你唯一的盼头是你的孩子跟你无话不说，这样你还有个机会事后在找补一下。
维持一个适当的教纲至少给那些极端的老师带了一个紧箍咒，是他们不会太过偏离。
shadows
资深人士
- 注册
- 2014-04-07
- 消息
- 2,742
- 荣誉分数
- 706
- 声望点数
- 223
靠 这真他妈的反人类。Thu Mar 12, 2015 - 9:32 am EST
The heartbreaking sex-ed Premier Wynne gave her own children
By Pete Baklinski
Thu Mar 12, 2015 - 9:32 am EST
‘Younger children are easier to teach’: Sex radical wants B.C. to ape Ontario’s early sex ed
By Steve Weatherbe
Thu Mar 12, 2015 - 9:32 am EST
CFC马甲分析师
封禁用户
- 注册
- 2013-06-11
- 消息
- 298
- 荣誉分数
- 61
- 声望点数
- 38
我日昍晶，你看清楚了，那些全是华裔吗？
这应该是穷得来依靠字数赚饭钱的中国小编写的文章。
Parent Alliance of Ontario Association
http://www.parentsalliance.ca/
April 14 protest: http://www.parentsalliance.ca/index.php/2-uncategorised/7-april-14-parental-rights-protest
http://www.parentsalliance.ca/
April 14 protest: http://www.parentsalliance.ca/index.php/2-uncategorised/7-april-14-parental-rights-protest
focus on today
资深人士
- 注册
- 2009-02-03
- 消息
- 4,673
- 荣誉分数
- 668
- 声望点数
- 223
听说这个”超前“的性教育观念前些年就有，相当于这个”种子“ 一直就埋在地底下等着春天气候适宜就冒出地面。保守当选举失败，谁也没料到是”超前“性教育的春天到了。以后年轻人想要孩子就搬出安省！不知那些省可以去？
作为基督徒，我以为不仅要反对这种”超前的性教育“ 和不当的性教育，也要加大教会里儿童家庭事工方面的投入和培训。这样能增加和”自由派性教育“的抗衡的力量。
作为基督徒，我以为不仅要反对这种”超前的性教育“ 和不当的性教育，也要加大教会里儿童家庭事工方面的投入和培训。这样能增加和”自由派性教育“的抗衡的力量。
- 注册
- 2007-12-07
- 消息
- 8,152
- 荣誉分数
- 2,363
- 声望点数
- 393
没有什么地方能去。我从阿尔博他省搬到萨省最后到安省，这种现象无处不在。甚至，阿尔博他省是我在街上见到的同性恋最多的地方
贵圈
政府都对党
- 注册
- 2014-10-21
- 消息
- 32,810
- 荣誉分数
- 6,140
- 声望点数
- 373
Wynne’s sex-ed isn’t about sex
Kathleen Wynne , Ontario Sex Ed , Sex Education , Sexuality
March 10, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- When it comes to an analysis of the new Liberal Government’s Sex Education Curriculum, others have done a more thorough job than I ever could. But it bears repeating that this program, which is slated to be implemented this September, is:
The problems begin with the curriculum’s Grade 1 proposition of teaching the correct names for human genitalia.
As a parent of 3 children and a grandparent of 5, I can tell you that most children master the toddler pounding bench by the age of 3. Round pegs go in round holes.
Couple this with Wynne’s Grade 1 description and naming of human genitals and – voila – your child implicitly knows how to have sex – all by the age of 6! The rest of it – the “consent”, the masturbation, the oral and anal sex, the gender identity, and so on – is just the icing on the cake. This so-called “sex ed” curriculum begins by making your child aware of the act of sexual intercourse.
And this is the problem with Wynne’s sex ed; while it may discuss sexual intercourse and other sexual activities, it really isn’t about sex.
To understand this, please note the item to the right. We all can identify it as a pen. But if I were to ask you to define “pen”, you’d probably hesitate.
Definitions have two parts; one: identify the structure; and two: identify the function.
A pen, in its most simplistic form is therefore: one: a thin, hollow cylinder filled with ink; and two: that is used for writing.
But if I were to take this pen and drive it into the neck of a person standing near me, the pen would cease to exist; it would now become a weapon.
The point being that once you fail to honour the definition of something or use it for some other purpose, it ceases to be what it was meant to be and it becomes something else.
So let’s go back to Wynne’s so-called “sex ed” curriculum. If its purpose is sex education, then, obviously, it needs to be about sex. So what is the definition of sex?
Sex is a life-giving force that unites the man and woman through total mutual self-giving.
Don’t like my definition? Truth is it’s not mine. Neither is it the definition of the Christian faith (though that faith does honour the definition), nor that of any other faith for that matter. Nor is it a construct of any society or culture that either exists now or has existed in the past. No. This is nature’s definition: is, was and always will be.
The very anatomical, physiological, and biochemical nature of the human male and female gives testimony to this truth. Sex is the attraction that draws male and female together, and it is meant to generate new life through the couple’s physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual union. Moreover, it is that union which will allow the couple to remain bonded when raising the children of their union, things get tough. Sex is so much more than just sexual intercourse or other sexual activities; it’s about responsibility, self-sacrifice, becoming one, and ultimately, about children.
So what about pleasure? you might ask. It’s part of sex, but it’s not in the definition.
You are correct. Pleasure is a by-product of sex, in the same way that creating wood chips and saw dust is a by-product of using a chainsaw. The purpose of a chainsaw is to cut wood not to produce wood chips and saw dust; nevertheless, with every use, the chain saw not only cuts the wood, but also produces wood chips and saw dust as well. So it is with sex and pleasure.
But pleasure is the foundation of Wynne’s “sex ed” curriculum, and therefore, where it goes wrong. This new curriculum ignores the life-giving facet of sex, other than to suggest that the creation of children is something to be avoided. It denies that sex is meant only for a man and a woman, and it ignores the union that sex creates. In short, Wynne's “sex ed” curriculum totally distorts the true definition of sex, and attempts to replace it instead with one that emphasizes pleasure and autonomy.
So what happens when the definition of something is ignored? It becomes something else.
So if Wynne’s new curriculum isn’t about sex, what is it about? In truth, it’s aboutPredatory Pleasure-Seeking –obtaining sexual gratification however, whenever, with whomever, or with no one other than yourself. Don’t believe me? Read the curriculum for yourself and see if what is being offered to your children meets with the true definition of sex, or is a grotesque distortion of it. And please be aware of just who is responsible for the framing of this new curriculum, Dr. Benjamin Levin, now convicted of 3 counts of child pornography.
So if Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal government really want to create a new sex education curriculum, the first place they need to get back to is the true definition of sex.
Kathleen Wynne , Ontario Sex Ed , Sex Education , Sexuality
March 10, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- When it comes to an analysis of the new Liberal Government’s Sex Education Curriculum, others have done a more thorough job than I ever could. But it bears repeating that this program, which is slated to be implemented this September, is:
- Completely age-inappropriate
- Erroneous and unscientific
- Contains more psychological manipulation than education
- Fails to address the negative consequences of the acts described in the curriculum
- Takes a position on the nature of the family that is at odds with many parents’ beliefs and faith traditions
The problems begin with the curriculum’s Grade 1 proposition of teaching the correct names for human genitalia.
As a parent of 3 children and a grandparent of 5, I can tell you that most children master the toddler pounding bench by the age of 3. Round pegs go in round holes.
Couple this with Wynne’s Grade 1 description and naming of human genitals and – voila – your child implicitly knows how to have sex – all by the age of 6! The rest of it – the “consent”, the masturbation, the oral and anal sex, the gender identity, and so on – is just the icing on the cake. This so-called “sex ed” curriculum begins by making your child aware of the act of sexual intercourse.
And this is the problem with Wynne’s sex ed; while it may discuss sexual intercourse and other sexual activities, it really isn’t about sex.
To understand this, please note the item to the right. We all can identify it as a pen. But if I were to ask you to define “pen”, you’d probably hesitate.
Definitions have two parts; one: identify the structure; and two: identify the function.
A pen, in its most simplistic form is therefore: one: a thin, hollow cylinder filled with ink; and two: that is used for writing.
But if I were to take this pen and drive it into the neck of a person standing near me, the pen would cease to exist; it would now become a weapon.
The point being that once you fail to honour the definition of something or use it for some other purpose, it ceases to be what it was meant to be and it becomes something else.
So let’s go back to Wynne’s so-called “sex ed” curriculum. If its purpose is sex education, then, obviously, it needs to be about sex. So what is the definition of sex?
Sex is a life-giving force that unites the man and woman through total mutual self-giving.
Don’t like my definition? Truth is it’s not mine. Neither is it the definition of the Christian faith (though that faith does honour the definition), nor that of any other faith for that matter. Nor is it a construct of any society or culture that either exists now or has existed in the past. No. This is nature’s definition: is, was and always will be.
The very anatomical, physiological, and biochemical nature of the human male and female gives testimony to this truth. Sex is the attraction that draws male and female together, and it is meant to generate new life through the couple’s physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual union. Moreover, it is that union which will allow the couple to remain bonded when raising the children of their union, things get tough. Sex is so much more than just sexual intercourse or other sexual activities; it’s about responsibility, self-sacrifice, becoming one, and ultimately, about children.
So what about pleasure? you might ask. It’s part of sex, but it’s not in the definition.
You are correct. Pleasure is a by-product of sex, in the same way that creating wood chips and saw dust is a by-product of using a chainsaw. The purpose of a chainsaw is to cut wood not to produce wood chips and saw dust; nevertheless, with every use, the chain saw not only cuts the wood, but also produces wood chips and saw dust as well. So it is with sex and pleasure.
But pleasure is the foundation of Wynne’s “sex ed” curriculum, and therefore, where it goes wrong. This new curriculum ignores the life-giving facet of sex, other than to suggest that the creation of children is something to be avoided. It denies that sex is meant only for a man and a woman, and it ignores the union that sex creates. In short, Wynne's “sex ed” curriculum totally distorts the true definition of sex, and attempts to replace it instead with one that emphasizes pleasure and autonomy.
So what happens when the definition of something is ignored? It becomes something else.
So if Wynne’s new curriculum isn’t about sex, what is it about? In truth, it’s aboutPredatory Pleasure-Seeking –obtaining sexual gratification however, whenever, with whomever, or with no one other than yourself. Don’t believe me? Read the curriculum for yourself and see if what is being offered to your children meets with the true definition of sex, or is a grotesque distortion of it. And please be aware of just who is responsible for the framing of this new curriculum, Dr. Benjamin Levin, now convicted of 3 counts of child pornography.
So if Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal government really want to create a new sex education curriculum, the first place they need to get back to is the true definition of sex.
