By DONALD DeMARCO
An advertisement that frequently appears in Toronto newspaper reads: “Sex for Life.” The double meaning of the word “life” may be unintentional, but it does bring to light diametrically opposed interpretations of that phrase.
As far as the merchandisers are concerned, their product grants the consumer “Sex for Life” in the sense of enabling him to have sex as long as he lives. This, of course, is an exaggerated claim, but so is much of commercial advertising. The primary focus of the ad is on the relationship between the performer and the product. On the other hand, “Sex for Life” could mean, as it has in the past and is imprinted in human nature, an activity that brings new life into being. Here, the emphasis is on two people and the child they procreate. It is biblical rather than commercial.
In the first meaning of “sex for life,” the performer is thematic. Associating sex primarily with the performer must be regarded as self-centered, if not selfish. The second meaning implies a certain altruism, or generosity, looking forward to the formation, arrival, and care of a new human being. The morality of sex is implied in the second meaning.
Ontario’s new sex education curriculum clearly does not reflect the second meaning of “sex for life.” In grade three, according to the curriculum, children will be presented with the non-biblical view that “two mothers or two fathers” are normative. They are told that human beings are not, as Genesis and history has testified, either male or female but can change from one sex to another. Grade four students are informed about the evil of “homophobia,” a curious ideological invention that, as linguists have pointed out, could apply to a fear of homonyms as well as homogenized milk. For the grade five pupils, fertilization takes place when a “penis is in the vagina.” This is a biological inaccuracy since fertilization takes place in the Fallopian tube well after the completion of intercourse. In grade six, non-marital sex, contraception, and masturbation are presented as acceptable.
It is a small wonder that a number of reputable groups regard the curriculum as an attack on the innocence of children. They also criticize the program for its concerted attempt to normalize homosexual practices. Needless to say, homosexual acts do not procreate life. In fact, they are dangerous to the lives of the practitioners. At the same time, contraception is aimed at preventing new life. Abortion, fully legal in Canada, ends life.
A group called Parents As First Educators (PAFE) has collected 50,000 signatures from people who protest the curriculum, while LifeSiteNews has garnered 40,000. And the numbers are climbing. Ottawa Bishop Terrence Prendergast, SJ, sees the sex-ed program as a “seizure of parental authority.”
According to Tory MP Cheryl Grant, the new sex program must be recalled in order to prevent children “from being groomed for exploitation.” She points out that “this curriculum was written by someone [Benjamin Levin, former deputy minister of education] charged with two counts of distributing child pornography, counseling to commit an indictable offense, and agreeing to or arranging for a sexual offense against a child under 16.” Levin recently pleaded guilty to child-related sex charges after an international investigation. To be more accurate, the curriculum was written under Levin’s direction.
Is the Ontario government attempting to displace parents as the primary teachers of their own children on the delicate matter of sex education? William D. Gardner in his 1992 book, The War Against the Family, and Michael D. O’Brien in his 1995 book, The Family and the New Totalitarianism, have warned about this totalitarian encroachment.
The situation at present is more dire. It is the family, and not an impersonal government that serves as the basis for a healthy society. The new sex-ed curriculum, given its focus on the satisfactions and self-indulgence of the individual, is not preparing children for cultivating that attitude of service and generosity that contributes to bringing about a better world.
While some supports naively praise the program for being “comprehensive,” the words “love” and “marriage,” according to the Campaign Life coalition, do not appear anywhere in the 200+ page curriculum.
It can be truly said that the Ontario government does not know the first thing about sex, which is that second meaning of “sex for life” ordinated toward love, marriage, generosity, and the possibility of new life. Sex cannot be regarded as an exclusively solitary pleasure. The new sex-ed program is not a form of education, but a plan to ruin society.
+ + +
(Dr. Donald DeMarco is a senior fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College in Cromwell, Conn., and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. His latest work, How to Remain Sane in a World That Is Going Mad, is available through Amazon.com. Some of his recent writings may be found at Human Life International’s Truth and Charity Forum.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress