Given that 3 September is Father’s Day, I thought I would start my analysis with a story about a dad.
Steve Tourloukis is a Canadian father of primary school aged kids, who have been raised in the Greek Orthodox faith. Among other things, this included teaching his children that sexual activity should be reserved for marriage, and that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Concerned that his kids might receive conflicting messages at school, Steve asked the teachers if he could be advised, in advance, of any material in the curriculum where homosexual activity would be treated as healthy and normal, so that he could exclude his children from those particular classes. The school refused.
First, they said it was impractical. They told Steve that LGBTIQ themes were embedded throughout all subjects, not just health and personal development. Second, they said it was a form of “bullying” of other children if Steve’s kids were given permission to sit out of the class.
Dissatisfied with the response, Steve took his request to the school board and ultimately to court. The court agreed that Steve’s freedoms had been impacted in a significant way, but declined to assist him. They suggested he homeschool his kids.
What does all of this have to do with gay marriage? It’s quite simple, really. Once the law of the land says that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, schools begin to teach them alongside each other as equal.
This includes “equality” when it comes to sex education, so students learn not only about the birds and the bees, but the birds and the birds, the bees and the bees, and the sex toys these couples might use.
People like Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Liberal MP Christopher Pyne have been telling us to stop talking about issues like this, and instead focus on the redefinition of marriage only.
Tim Wilson MP assures us that if Australia votes “yes,” necessary protections for those who disagree will be put in place. The problem with their approach is that they cannot promise parents any say in what their kids are taught.
These changes are not brought in by legal means, but by activist educational bureaucrats empowered by the new law on marriage, which means equally that there is no legal means to protect parents against the change.
Look at what happened in NSW recently. The so-called “Safe Schools” program was scrapped after parents raised concerns, only to be reintroduced just months later, repackaged and renamed.
The Education Minister knew nothing about it, because the changes were brought in by education officers and not by law or government policy.
You might be wondering whether I’m being a bit dramatic about all of this, and whether the content is really that bad. Take a look at the image above.
It’s being used in schools across the United States and Canada, including in Ontario, where Steve’s kids go to school.
The “Gender Unicorn” is a resource for teachers to assist students in determining their gender. Kids are asked to plot their gender identity, gender expression, sexual attraction and romantic or emotional attraction along an axis. The “Gender Unicorn” resource also comes in a colouring in sheet, so kids can pick their own colours as well.
The colouring in sheet indicates that this is not an activity for older kids, but for younger ones.
It’s obscene. But in a post- same-sex marriage world, this is what kids get fed.
Leaving faith-based issues aside, a significant problem with this type of material is how it confuses little kids. The year after same-sex marriage became legal in the UK, the number of children presenting with gender dysphoria doubled.
In Victoria – where the “Safe Schools” program has been for 7 years and is now about to become compulsory for all state schools – gender clinic referrals for children have risen by a whopping 4000 per cent since “Safe Schools” was introduced.
The issues for education are real: not only is there a removal of parental rights in relation to what their kids are taught, but there is also a denial of the child’s right to not be confused about their identity from such a young age.
As we approach this vote, I ask all parents to consider carefully whether they would be comfortable with this type of ideology coming into their kids’ classroom, without their consent or even their knowledge.
If your answer is “no,” then please, vote no.