Ri-chard wrote:
"Children must have sexual partners" - say the UN and WHO
This evidence report reveals how the World Health Organization and United Nations are sexualizing little children in primary education worldwide, for the purpose of normalizing p********a.
To the OPP Liberal Socialist and Q***rs, it's time to lock-n-Load to protect our children from you all.
https://stopworldcontrol.com/children/
I am so sick and tired of you misleading your readers. The information "article" that you link is also so misleading. The author points out that he/she is paraphrasing while misleading the reader to be outraged by its written political slant, bias or agenda. I went to that article thinking is this the t***h? Soon, the reader can see the agenda of said article and its site. Scrolling through it, I was bombarded with right-wing popups to link to other right-wing sites. Then I went to the actual report, "International technical guidance on sexuality education An evidence-informed approach." It is a suggestion for curriculum in sex education for participating countries of the United Nations. Did you go to it or did you just not research your uninformed pablum?
Here is the first paragraph of the Introduction on page 11: "Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) plays a central role in the pr********n of young people for a safe, productive, fulfilling life in a world where HIV and AIDS, sexually t***smitted infections (STIs), unintended pregnancies, g****r-based violence (GBV) and g****r ine******y still pose serious risks to their well-being. However, despite clear and compelling evidence for the benefits of high-quality, curriculum-based CSE, few children and young people receive pr********n for their lives that empowers them to take control and make informed decisions about their sexuality and relationships freely and responsibly."
As I read and understand the first paragraph, the purpose is not behavior, but knowledge preparing the people for their future life. You and your article suggest and lean the reader to believe that children are being taught how to perform such sex acts. Furthermore, the second paragraph of the introduction expands its goals for proper knowledge in sexual education.
"Many young people approach adulthood faced with conflicting, negative and confusing messages about sexuality that are often exacerbated by embarrassment and silence from adults, including parents and teachers. In many societies, attitudes and laws discourage public discussion of sexuality and sexual behaviour, (sic), and social norms may perpetuate harmful conditions, for example g****r ine******y in relation to sexual relationships, family planning and modern contraceptive use."
What is wrong with those goals? We, Americans, have puritan deep roots in our past history. However, that's in the past. In the 21st century, isn't it more proper and good that American children be knowledgeable about their bodies and sex? If you're thinking that the common argument against teaching sexual education in the schools is wrong because "it should stay in the home." How many of you got "the Talk." And when? At 15, 16, 17, 18 or on the night before marriage? I never did and at 16, while fooling around, I got my partner pregnant. I strongly believe young people must be prepared and as we all know, personally, that when hormones surge; behavior follows.
The third paragraph demonstrates the goals for "age appropriate knowledge..." as follows:
"A significant body of evidence shows that CSE enables children and young people to develop: accurate and age appropriate knowledge, attitudes and sk**ls; positive values, including respect for human rights, g****r e******y and diversity, and, attitudes and sk**ls that contribute to safe, healthy, positive relationships (see Section 4 – The evidence base for comprehensive sexuality education). CSE is also important as it can help young people reflect on social norms, cultural values and traditional beliefs, in order to better understand and manage their relationships with peers, parents, teachers, other adults and their communities."
Now what is wrong with that?
By the way Ri-chard: You threaten me and mine again, I will turn your written threat, which I have saved, to the proper authorities here and everywhere in the real world, from my city, county, state law enforcement and federal representatives. You advocate k*****g "Q***rs" and others, as you say, "lock-n-Load." Political opinions and expressing them are one thing, but your threat to k**l is another. Innocent people on both sides can be at risk!
Do YOU get this Q***r, Ri-chard?