"Incensed at a new sex education curriculum they say will be too graphic for young sensibilities, parents of thousands of GTA elementary students kept their children home from school Monday in protest, with a thousand taking placards and chants of “We Say No!” to Premier Kathleen Wynne’s riding office.
In Toronto, almost 35,000 students were absent, a leap of 144 per cent over the previous Monday."
Source:
http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2015/05/04/thousands-of-par...
Sex, sexuality, gender, and sexual health are hot-button issues, and religious adherents usually know where they stand with regards to these topics. Many of these parents have chosen to take a stand, and withhold their children from school. Do you agree, or disagree? Why?
What can society do, when religious values conflict with public health priorities? Are parents within their rights to withhold their children from public schools, and object to education on moral/ethical/religious grounds? If not what is the limit to what values society can impose on its members? If so, how much accommodation should society allow?
Additionally, does being atheist necessitate the acceptance of a range of sex, sexuality, and gender differences as a fact of life?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Hmm. The article seems to indicate that they are giving sexual education to first graders? I have to say, unless the age range for that grade is appreciably different in Toronto, I would say that is a little bit too young. Shouldn't this be a little more tailored to their sexual and psychological development? I just can't help but think that first grade is a little too early for that sort of education...
"Additionally, does being atheist necessitate the acceptance of a range of sex, sexuality, and gender differences as a fact of life?"
No, atheism is just a disbelief in gods, people can still be bigots without any form of religious training.
The best book to understand sex and orgy is the bible, here is some of the most interesting passages:
OWW no no, not the old testament, in the NEW one:
Revelation 22:1-2: "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations."
In order to get this joke you need to visualize what is being described. The water of life proceeds out of the throne of God. Just where on the throne does it proceed from? Could it be from the penis of the throne's occupant? What about the female tree of life? The tree of life is human, because she yields her fruit every month. She is menstrual. Is it a coincidence that the water of life (sperm) is fertilizing the female tree of life? Doesn't this suggest even more strongly that the water of life is indeed sperm?
Revelation 22:17: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
The word "come" meant the same thing to the Romans that it means to us. It is slang for "orgasm." Here a bride is telling us to "come."In fact, we are ALL being told to "come." And, by the way, whosoever wishes to be fucked, or to suck our dicks, let him take our sperm freely. An orgy is being described. The presence of the "bride" in the context of the "water of life" clearly refers to a sexual act, just as in Revelation 22:1-2 above. Imagine the Roman royals sitting around eating grapes, drinking wine and joking about the Christians believing this stuff?