The LGBTI agenda is slowly permeating the education system, not only through the Safe Schools program, but through new programs inspired by it. Without the knowledge of parents, or even authorities, changes to the curriculum were quietly made earlier this year.
The seventeen-page teacher toolbox, which was incorporated into typical classroom activities, introduces to a range of ages some explicit content. It promotes the idea of fluid sexual orientation as normal, and encourages students to think outside of the box. As one example, the program in question enjoins children to think that “sexuality varies like the weather,” insinuating that sexuality is an option, while simultaneously sexualising the common concept of weather. The Australian reports:
The NSW government has ordered an investigation into the Education Department’s launch of an official teaching resource that urges teachers to “de-gender” their classroom language and promotes activities that encourage students to think about sexuality as “non-binary”, or existing on a continuum “like temperature or the weather”.
A close look at the curriculum reveals disturbing objectives to be pushed onto children. For instance, the ‘Teaching Notes’ are full of statements such as:
It is important for students to move beyond binary thinking or thinking in terms of opposites. They need to understand that gender is not fixed and that as young people they do not have to comply with traditional notions of what it means to be a young man or a young woman in today’s society.
Further along in the curriculum, it suggests a group discussion, based on the above prompt:
Sometimes people think in terms of opposites. This is called binary thinking. For example, people might say that the temperature is either hot or cold or the weather is either dry or wet rather than really thinking about the specific situation. In most cases where the concept is simple, like the temperature or weather, this is not a problem because it doesn’t affect anyone else. For more complex concepts, like aspects of identity and in particular, sexuality, binary thinking is not very useful.
To illustrate this, students are given an activity where they are asked to determine the sexuality of a number of characters, including Joseph:
Joseph is married and has three children. His only experiences of sexual intercourse have been with women. When he masturbates, he fantasises only about men. Joseph talks negatively about men having sexual relationships with other men although he himself is attracted to several of his male friends.
It’s not only parents who seem to be unaware that their children are being exposed to such extreme sexual discussion in class. After the material was brought to his attention by The Australian, Education Minister Piccoli stated:
“I have directed the department to take it down immediately and review the material and all links,” he said. “Safe Schools materials are only to be used strictly in accordance with the revised guidelines established by the federal government. I am furious this policy has not been adhered to and have demanded a full explanation from the (departmental) secretary.”
Even though the program has been taken down, it is alarming that it managed to be in place this long without authorisation from the Education Minister or parents. Parents are right to be concerned about what their children will be exposed to next. LGBTI activism has taken another step too far. Schools should not have any justification for authorising a class to analyse the sexual desires of imaginary characters. This occurrence is only one in a vast number of consequences we will face if the definition of marriage is changed. Not only for the country, but also for the sake of our children, we must uphold the traditional meaning of marriage. If marriage is redefined, we will see programs such as these become rampant throughout Australia.