Peter Vogel - Deputy Leader of the Christian Heritage Party
April 9, 2015
Why would a federal party comment on education, an area of provincial jurisdiction? Because children are not just an area of jurisdiction; they are the future of the whole country.
While parents’ rights to educate their own children are a point of major concern and could deserve an article of their own, perhaps the issue that is being missed most in the current debate is the centrality of traditional marriage—which is an area of federal jurisdiction. The proposed Ontario sex ed curriculum bypasses this debate and attempts to impose specific presuppositions on students and their unwilling parents.
For those of you who have not read any of Ontario’s proposed new curriculum, we acknowledge that not every single item in the curriculum is wrong. Health is a major focus, including nutrition, hygiene and the concept of healthy interpersonal relationships. Although there would be debate on particular points, not every conclusion is wrong. It is the false moral equivalence, which is ascribed to various kinds of relationships and practices, which makes the whole curriculum unacceptable to so many Ontario parents. Most parents care deeply about the values being instilled in their children and want them raised with logical and consistent explanations about sexual integrity and healthy relationships.
As they say, “the devil is in the details”. Beyond the errors written into the curriculum, teachers are also given prerogatives that should be reserved for parents; working within the curriculum, they are granted far too much leeway to expand on it in ways that many parents will find very disturbing. Teachers will be required to explain moral choices in a “morally neutral” way (as if that were possible). According to PEACE Director, Phil Lees, teachers will not be allowed to share the extremely relevant statistics on the health outcomes of certain sexual behaviours and practices. Mr. Lees has noted, for instance, that teachers would not be permitted to tell students about the much higher health risks associated with homosexual relationships. This, of course, belies the stated purposes of the new curriculum and shows that it is nothing more than biased propaganda designed to promote social change against the wishes of many students and parents.
When one takes a step back and looks at the bigger picture, worrying trends begin to emerge. If education can be used to help people reach their greatest potential, should it encourage less than ideal outcomes? For example, should it encourage subsisting on welfare as an equally acceptable outcome to earning a living by working at a job? No, of course not. Should sex and health education accept as an equal outcome “safe” promiscuity as opposed to faithful monogamy? The answer is still “No”.
From a health and life-expectancy point of view, which is better, promiscuity or monogamy? Hmmm. What about heterosexual, as compared to homosexual relationships? These are big questions and they apply to our whole society, not just Ontario’s education system.
The stats are out there to read, just Google “sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals” and you will find disease trends that should scare you. This link is a good starting point as well.
Medical evidence is on the side of heterosexual marriage for the best outcomes. If you agree that this is best for our children and our country, support the only political party that defends traditional marriage, the traditional family and which seeks to protect our children from sexualization that is contrary to the wishes of their parents.