Reasons to Homeschool: Canadian Edition

Your child will not be subjected to experiments in cross-dressing in elementary schools.  Kathy Shaidle comments:

It’s pretty obvious to any sane person that this is another example of gay-agenda, NAMBLA inspired grooming in schools.

(See here for the connection between NAMBLA and former Obama “safe” gay schools czar Kevin Jennings.)

If you send your child to a Toronto public school, are you guilty of child abuse?

Note: to paraphrase Mark Shea — today Sandusky is a villain, but wait 20 years and you’ll see Tony-award winning plays celebrating him as a misunderstood pioneer of “man-boy” love.

Speaking of the semi-permeable membrane between lionized gay heroes and disgusting creeps leering at your kid:

San Francisco police have arrested veteran gay rights advocate Larry Brinkin in connection with felony possession of child pornography.

Brinkin, 66, who worked for the San Francisco Human Rights Commission before his retirement in 2010, was taken into custody Friday night.

This is but one of the reasons I think you have to be an utterly brain-dead moral idiot to expose a child to a Pride Parade.

"Does Pope Francis know about all your lies, slander and racist anti-Semitic articles? I think ..."

Nice to get mail like this
"who the fuck cares about the Irish, they are all going to abort themselves out ..."

An Irish reader sends along a ..."
"Recent studies show that Trump voters don't feel disenfranchised, but 'disrespected'. It was not financial ..."

What a Time to Be Alive!
"I would pray that at least a few US bishops, including Bishop Barron, participate in ..."

What Evangelizing Culture Looks Like

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I am shocked! AOL is still around?

  • john

    “to paraphrase Mark Shea — today Sandusky is a villain, but wait 20 years and you’ll see Tony-award winning plays celebrating him as a misunderstood pioneer of “man-boy” love.”…and the Church will be attacked for its stand against “man-boy” love.

  • math_geek

    Frankly, this story, which Dreher skewered much better, doesn’t have much of an impact on me. I think it’s insane to teach children that way, but I think the moral outrage is a bit dubious. After all, it’s not a sin for me as a male to wear a dress. If I demand everyone to call me a woman, that’s absurd, but possibly (maybe?) still not sinful.

    If two men want to live together, make out, sleep in the same bed, and not have sex, then I don’t see how Catholic teaching can instruct against that either.

    Perhaps we’d be better off as a Faith if we stuck to the core of what the Church taught and didn’t worry so much about the mostly harmless periphery of the more sinful elements of our culture.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      “I think the moral outrage is a bit dubious.”

      If your morality isn’t outraged by: (a) the waste of taxpayer money, and (b) the misuse of the authority and the resources of our school system to teach our children unmitigated and comprehensive horseshit, and (c) seeing our children, who are in crying need for excellence in education in reading, writing, math, science, be deprived of even a moment of these in order that classroom time may be devoted instead to their instruction in the aforementioned unmitigated and comprehensive horseshit, then I think yours is a system of morality that approaches insensation to much in the way of outrage at all.

    • I think, from a sort of flat-footed literalist reading of morality, it might not be a sin merely to wear a dress. If only that was all this individual was doing. This person’s choice of attire is meant to support the idea that this person is of a gender that same person is not, biologically. It feeds into your second claim, in which expecting others to refer to him as a “her” is to attempt to get others to acknowledge as true something that isn’t. That’s encouraging them to lie, which is a sin. Insane, yes, but note that this value is not mutually exclusive from sin.

      Further, I have a hard time seeing how it is that two men living together, making out and sleeping in the same bed aren’t guilty of scandal or gross presumption on the basis of the core teachings of the Church.

      • math_geek

        There are plenty of cross dressing men who identify as heterosexual men. I have no bloody idea why they do this, but it happens. The person writing the curriculum guide appears not to be claiming that he is female. We are making the assumption that he is making that claim despite the possibility that it isn’t.

        Scandal… I.E. leading other people to sin by your activities. Because two men who are associating with each other too intimately must be gay, therefore must be having sex, therefore must be sinning. More assumptions. History suggests men were often far more comfortable with intimacy before the possibility of implication that they were homosexual.

        Now, this is all very well for me, who outside of some kind of humor see no reason to wear a dress and prefer my kissing and cuddling with women. However, for someone with different desires, this charge of “scandal” makes the already difficult task of following Christ even more difficult. If it is the case that our assumptions without proof are making the path to Christ more difficult for others, than we need to protect ourselves from those assumptions. This is especially true in the case of people with such desires, who are already being heavily tempted away from Christ.

        • enness

          What is kissing and cuddling (in that context, anyway) for, math geek? What is the point of it, what is its purpose? It’s romantic stuff — mating behavior.

      • What I find more problematic is that the discussion of mores concerning sexual activity are too often conflated with the discussion of gender expression. When I say gender expression, I don’t mean cross dressing or the like by itself. I mean how we each act individually in the totality of our personality as it is associated with culturally indoctrinated traditional gender roles that not only discuss the pertinence of clothing to a man/woman, but also qualify particular clothing or behavior pertaining to either gender as being more “masculine” or “feminine” than another (which, at the end of the day, doesn’t really mean anything. The Church’s teaching on masculinity/femininity has little to nothing to do with social or cultural norms and everything to do with sexuality, and furthermore She doesn’t have the aptitude to teach concerning the former because those are matters of human anthropology, not faith or morals). This is something that should be examined more carefully and yes, as the first commenter said, more dubiously as it does little to bring us closer to any truth other than one that we’re making up ourselves for the purpose of preserving a cultural norm for its own sake.

    • math_geek says: If two men want to live together, make out, sleep in the same bed, and not have sex, then I don’t see how Catholic teaching can instruct against that either.

      Seriously? How many of such types do you believe exist, anyway?

      Just when you thought you’d met the most morally benighted person in the universe, someone else reaches for the brass ring. Nicely done.

      • Ted Seeber

        Used to be quite a few. I imagine there still are in any society that has a poverty of bed space. On camping trips I’ve done this with my brother, no problem. Well, no problem until he came back from basic training anyway, with the tendency to wake up choking me if I rolled over in the night.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    Some husbands and some wives may find it appealing when during private and intimate moments, they murmur endearments in a foreign accent to one another.

    What. Ever.

    What spouses might do to please each other and enjoy each other in the privacy and sanctity of the marital chamber is something we need to be teaching fourth-grade school children about during classroom time . . . why?

    • Ted Seeber

      Why did I just get the impression of John Astin as Gomez Addams, chomping down on Carolyn Jones (Morticia)’s arm while saying “That’s French! You know what that does to me!”?

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    P.S. And if some peoples’ pet turn-ons are coming out of the privacy and sanctity of the marital chamber and into the public domain, then I want to know about it so I can run the other way when I see them coming.

    Somebody bring me a fire hose
    I think I’m standing next to one of those!

    You go home and do whatever it is you need to do with your Mrs., honey, and then when you got that taken care of, then you get dressed the normal way and come and be around me and my fourth-graders.

    Can I get an amen?

    • Missy

      I agree, Marion. I wasn’t raised to be homophobic. I was raised to know that some things are appropriate & some things are not appropriate. It is not appropriate for ANYONE to display their sexual affections publicly. That should be reserved, as you said, to the privacy of the home. It is very rude to cause discomfort in others, especially purposefully. No one needs to witness anyone else’s foreplay, whether hetero- or homo-. And it’s better to tie a millstone around your neck than to cause scandal.

  • Ted Seeber

    When I worked for the State of Oregon (and one reason I now refuse to ever take a government job again) I was ordered to consider 9 genders in a program to do a report on civil rights for the federal government.

    Never mind that in the database, even when you considered other as a category, only .03% of construction workers working for Minority and Women Owned Businesses contracting for our state highways did NOT self-report as either male or female. And this is for 20,000 employees in 6000 contractors, statewide.