Sex Education to Five Year Olds part of Homosexual Agenda
February 11, 2009
Teaching the Pleasures of Homosexual Sex to 5 Year Olds
“Children as young as five should be taught to understand the pleasures of gay sex, according to leaders of a taxpayer-funded education project.
Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of ‘creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated.’”
This project is currently operating in 14 primary schools in Britain where its stated purpose is to stop bullying and prejudice toward homosexuals. But that’s not all their teaching:
“At a seminar at Exeter University, supporters of the group will go beyond the anti-bullying agenda and discuss ‘pleasure and desire in educational contexts’.”
“They [homosexual activists] understand that the best way to corrupt someone’s morals, someone’s sense of right and wrong, is to do so when they are young and impressionable. The longer someone is exposed to something, the more desensitized they become to it. The more “normal” it becomes. If they can begin presenting this immoral and unhealthy behavior as “normal” to five-year-olds, they most likely win a convert for life.”
As we see in states and other countries that have legalized same-sex ‘marriage’, the education system will be forced to teach about same-sex ‘marriage’ and alternative lifestyles. This is a prime example for validating this statement:
Same-sex ‘marriage’ will impact everyone’s marriage.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Just becuase one radical group publishes their opinion in one of the many countries in europe that allow same sex marriage, does not mean that if we allow gays equal rights in the US all 5 year olds will learn about gay sex. Radical relgious groups publish opinions all the time that are just as shocking in countries were freedom of religion is allowed.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Jarod, I respectfully disagree with your assumption about our education system. This isn’t about ‘radical religious groups’. It’s about what our education system will teach if same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized.
I’ll cite examples in our country in states that allow same-sex ‘marriage’. In Massachusetts, a 5-year-old came home with a picture book about same-sex couples. When the father asked to be notified when teachers were discussing this material, he eventually was thrown in jail overnight. (Source)
Or in California, while the state allowed same-sex ‘marriage’, kindergartners signed pledge cards given out by an LGBT organization describing ‘different lifestyles’. (Source)
And this certainly isnt limited to just 5-year-olds. Take the sex education being given to 8th graders in Massachusetts that explicitly detail ‘gay-sex’. Is a appropriate for teachers to show and educate kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys? (Source)
If the country legalizes same-sex marriage, it opens any public school to talk about/educate on this topic; no matter what the age is. Since these things are already being taught in states allowing same-sex marriage, boundaries to same-sex education come down all together if the US legalizes same-sex marriage.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
5yr old’s should NOT be getting ANY Sex education in school. That is a parents right and resposibility.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
This is an issue not to be ignored! As adults we need to protect the innocence of our children. Schools are to be used to educate our children with skills of reading and writing, etc.. It is NOT a place to indoctrinate them with an agenda of homosexuality or sex ed even. We already teach them about good touch/bad touch and letting us know as their parents if someone does or says something that makes them uncomfortable. That is all they need to know at 5 years of age. They are too young. We need to be vigilant about what comes in to our area schools. Most importantly we need to PRAY and then act on behalf of our children.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
What an opportunity for the Christian community to share:
1. about commitment;
2. about responsibilities and accountability.
What an opportunity for the Christian community to provide:
1. sharings from married couples;
2. classes on strengthening couples and families;
3. opportunities to involve the church body and encourage them to take part in community activities.
People have to feel that they belong somewhere. It begins at home. Children practice what they see modeled.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Will they also teach these young kids about the resulting diseases (in detail!!) that will most likely kill them at an early age or that they might infect another innocent person with HIV AIDS or Hepatitis or another disease if they live out this “pleasurable” lifestyle?? I will never understand why the homosexual world thinks the rest of us should just accept the fact that their lifestyle puts innocent people who want nothing to do with this lifestyle at risk. How selfish of them!! I think we should swing the limelight on this aspect of homosexuality and see how much appeal it still holds.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:42 am
You know, the big thing with gays and lesbians and this marriage thing is “equal rights”. It’s equally my right to oppose a lifestyle that will bring more disease to our world. Why should I just set back and feel all warm and fuzzy about “tolerating” this?? If they could keep the harm they’re doing to themselves, and not try to bring others down with them, that’s one thing. But they don’t! It boggles my mind that a lifestyle that runs a high risk of savage diseases doesn’t speak for itself….perfect example of how the devil puts blinders on the realities and instead limelights the areas that make “normal” people look like bigots.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Sexually transmitted diseases are not a gay only issue and never was. It was heterosexual europeans who brought Syphillis to North America killing many Native Americans. It was also a major killer in Europe.
Isn’t a heterosexual lifestyle “pleasurable” too? Don’t you derive pleasure from your partner or spouse?
When people are in committed married relationships they do not spread disease. So lets allow gay marriage. Lets educate children on responsible relationships and sexual activity at an appropriate age, including disease prevention.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Anytime you go beyond the limits of sex in marriage as God intended of ONE man and ONE woman (meaning closed to all others), and that includes premarital sex (even if it’s hetero), you open yourself wide to consequences including disease. Let’s educate our children on keeping themselves pure and abstaining from premarital sex, and I’m talking heterosexual here! NO child, absolutely NO child should be subjected to learning the means and ways of homosexual lifestyle!! God made women and men to fit together NATURALLY. Period. Warping a child with anything else is plain and simply WRONG.
August 12th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Please tell me you all do realize the main purpose of educating elementary kids; don’t you? If the answer is no, then please spend as much time as possible on discussion boards where both sides of the same-sex marriage debates occur (Facebook groups are great). You wil be told over and over again, that the main agenda for teaching youth is to teach acceptance to avoid bullying. Look past the bullying and know that by teaching each new generation of youngsters to accept their lifestyle as healthy/normal, is one more generation closer to their end goal of guaranteed approval for same-sex marriage and more one day. Don’t be fooled people. They cannot convince the older and wiser; their only hope is your children.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Ironically, I believe the most effective Christian response in this debate is to insist that if one sexual orientation is to be championed to receive equal rights, then ALL sexual orientations must be included. Can you imagine Martin Luther King Jr asking for civil rights for Blacks, but saying Asians and Hispanics should not? Is this not what is happening now? Gays want civil rights, but are repulsed when we ask, “How about polysexuals (oriented to more than one partner), familiosexuals (oriented to immediate family members), and of course pedosexuals (oriented towards children)?” Are we follish enough to believe that sexual orientation only means 3-4 preferences? Perhaps social conservatives are not the only bigots in this debate.