ACCORDING TO proposed education guidelines, a third-grader should be able to “[d]efine sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender” and “[i]dentify parents or other trusted adults of whom students can ask questions about sexual orientation.”

The guidelines are titled the National Sexuality Education Standards and come in a new report funded by the nation’s largest teachers union, the American School Health Association, and two other school health organizations.

America is likely to become the first country in the history of the world to formally teach young children that homosexuality is normal. Even if these standards are not adopted, it is highly unlikely that the impetus for introducing children to homosexuality at a younger and younger age will cease to gain momentum in public schools. There is simply no way of stopping it short of a revolution.  

According to CNS News: 

“Ideally, comprehensive sexuality education should start in kindergarten and continue through 12th grade,” says the “National Sexuality Education Standards” report, drawn up by a range of advocates, academics and public education officials.

The Future of Sex Education (FoSE), an initiative started by sex education advocates, developed the standards “to create a strategic plan for sexuality education policy and implementation.”

 “Comprehensive sex education” is newspeak for comprehensive sexual perversion. CNS News reports:

Upon completion of middle school, students should be able to “[a]nalyze external influences that have an impact on one’s attitudes about gender, sexual orientation and gender identity”; “[a]ccess accurate information about gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation”; “[c]ommunicate respectfully with and about people of all gender identities, gender expressions and sexual orientations”; “[e]xplain the health benefits, risks and effectiveness rates of various methods of contraception, including abstinence and condoms”; and “[d]escribe the steps to using a condom correctly.”

And by the time they graduate from high school students should be expected to “[d]efine emergency contraception and describe its mechanism of action” and “[a]ssess the skills and resources needed to become a parent.”

Also included in the guidelines are the following: “Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of abstinence and other contraceptive methods, including condoms”; “Access medically-accurate information and resources about emergency contraception”; “Compare and contrast the laws relating to pregnancy, adoption, abortion and parenting”; and “Describe potential impacts of power differences (e.g., age, status or position) within sexual relationships.”

                                                      — Comments —

Jill Farris writes:

A revolution would occur if every moral person who objected to the teaching, every Christian who insisted that their public school was different than most public schools, every conservative who shook their head at the state of our country did one simple thing….took their children and grandchildren out of the public schools!

It is one simple thing…easy? No, but doing what is right is never easy.

Laura writes:

Far too many decent people delude themselves into thinking the schools can be changed or that they can counteract indoctrination at home.  

Josh F. writes:

We need to be explicit when we let others know what exactly is being taught when our kids and their kids are being taught that “homosexuality is normal.”

We are teaching our kids to embrace self-annihilation. This teaching is indeed criminal!

Laura writes:

Homosexuality is not a “sexual orientation.” It is sexual obliteration. It denies the primary end of sex, which is procreation.

Buck writes:

You write: “Homosexuality is not a “sexual orientation.” It is sexual obliteration. It denies the primary end of sex, which is procreation.” 

How right you are. You may also know that the horse has long departed the barn, and has “fruitfully” multiplied in the wild and can never be brought back to the barn. 

I’ve argued many times that once an idea, any idea, reaches just a minimum level of discourse and is “peer” reviewed in academia, it’s a done deal and it will be implemented then codified into law. Look back at any of the early obscure writings on homosexuality and feminism. These are now degreed study programs and the authors are department heads or revered retired alumni. I go so far as to say that once the idea is conceived and fully conceptualized in writing anywhere in academia, and is taken seriously, it will become a reality. It really seems so. 

The homosexualization of the United States is inches away from complete and has long been irreversable. America, the withering holdout within the diseased United States can only maintain and survive in secret. 

If someone wants to read what exists in the bowels of academia, google “biological essentialism”, “gender essentialism” or the the “Journal of Homosexuality.” The other day, I read as much of it as I could stand. I’ve been nauseous ever since.

David S. writes:

“Homosexuality is not a ‘sexual orientation.’ It is sexual  obliteration. It denies the primary end of sex, which is procreation.”

To adapt the NRA’s slogan, sex doesn’t have ends, people have ends. So one couple’s end in having sex might be procreation, but another’s might not be, whether same-sex or different-sex.

Laura writes:

“[S]ex doesn’t have ends, people have ends.”

Really? Do you know the basic facts of biology? If sex didn’t have ends, you wouldn’t exist. Whether you consider your existence a good thing or not, it is an irrefutable consequence of sexual interaction between a man and a woman.

Now, you can deny the procreative purpose of sex, just as you can deny the nutritional purpose of food, but denial doesn’t make it go away.

The most immediate physical consequence of ignoring or thwarting the primary end of sex is infertility. There are other common physical consequences such as disease and pollution (our water supply is polluted with synthetic hormones.) But procreation is not just a biological process. It’s spiritual as well. The spiritual consequence of denying the procreative end of sex is alienation from God. Alienation from God is alienation from oneself.

Please follow and like us: