header photo

The Analytic Humanist

 smart people helping others




There are currently no blog comments.

More Science In Our Sex Education

More Science In Sex Education Please

How should a Christian respond when asked about how sex ought to be taught? It is an interesting question because of course it assumes children ought to be educated about sex, rather than say about moral right and wrong as it relates to bodily autonomy.

Unfortunately, the issue has become defined by the liberal narrative. The left has attempted to turn sex education into a health and safety issue. Information, say liberals, is needed by the young so they can make the right choices. Liberals appear to suggest it is not up to the parents and teachers to protect the child from having to make these kinds of choices. To suggest pre-teens can make informed choices regarding sex or that they need to have access to information regarding condemn use is a very thin cover for normalizing libertine attitudes regarding sex.

However, the liberal narrative has ensured our response cannot be a doubling down of the religious narrative regarding morality. It is important at this point for Christians to realize the Christian position is identical to the scientific one. We do not need to point out if parents and teachers do their job the issue of safety based on children making informed choices about sexual positions is moot. The liberal position cannot be defended by science because it is not based on science. Christians are well position to debate the issue on the grounds of scientific credibility. There is room for discussions on safety. Schools can and ought to discuss safety issues surrounding the use of computers, educators, sports figures and other persons they will meet. Safety however is not about guiding them through sexual encounters it is about protecting the child from assault.

It is the position of this writer that assault is assault and a separate issue from sex. As educators we need to put sex education on a scientific and objective basis. The desire here is to move the debate from ideological and political sphere and onto a more stable and objective platform. This essay seeks to establish a program that is free of the subjectivity that has led to what many say is age inappropriate material being introduced. A reversion to a more objective foundation it is hoped will eliminate the political posturing that has played such a large role in the present narrative.

Our concern for the young must not become mixed up in or become part of a political platform. Sex education must not be swayed by emotional concerns. The introduction of a sexual identity into a child’s life is of course subject to a wide range of emotional influences. The school system ought not to add to this confusion and certainly ought not to seek to influence the child by insisting a single voice (that of the educator) be heard. Curricular must never be allowed to focus on subjective positions nor on social agendas. All curricula on all subjects must be established on a sound, scientific basis and in coming to a decision as to what to include and what to leave out and what perspective to take in dealing with the matter, no personal bias ought to enter in. To give way to personal bias and distraught emotionalism in setting out what to teach is to fall afoul of indoctrination, a cruel and inhuman prospect when dealing with the youngest and most vulnerable members of society.

It is scientifically established that there are two sexes. This cannot be disputed logically, biologically nor sexually and is buttressed by every scientific study done. This indisputable fact must serve as the foundation of this and every inquiry into the subject of sex.

Sexual identity is based on our chromosomal inheritance. Humans have only two chromosomes defining their sexual orientation, these are the X and Y chromosomes. A female has two XX Chromosomes and a male has an XY Chromosome.  Regardless of any inconvenience this may pose for any other narrative this is a solid scientific fact not to be cast aside for the purpose of political expediency.

We are all born one of two sexes. All persons born are born from a union of male and female, there are no exceptions. We all have at conception a male contributor of sperm and a female contributor of an egg. The male is traditionally referred to as the father of the new life and the female is known as the mother. This fact substantiates the previously established fact. Two sexes produce all known offspring each with one of two chromosomal pairs.

The contributor of the sperm is a sexual male and he fertilizes the egg. To do this he penetrates the female with his sex organ known as a penis and ejects or ejaculates the fertilizing medium into the female. The egg is within the female and is fertilized in the womb of the female. The female receives the sperm of the male and carries the new life as it develops t the point where it can be birthed.

Every child born is born of a mother and father. There are no known exceptions. The mother is female with two X chromosomes the father is a male with an XY pair.

The structure of a family can be varied in many ways according to the choices made by the mother and the father, the male and female parents, but the core family, the nuclear family is always biologically composed of a mother who gives birth and nurtures the child, a father who inseminates the mother and offers protection and support to the female (normally referred to as his wife), and any number of children who may be male or female and who will grow up potentially able to inseminate a female or be inseminated by a male.

The bodies of male and female are designed to recreate males and females and to perpetuate the species. There are certain biological and species-specific changes that must happen and sociological conditions that must be met to enable the species to not just survive but to thrive.

One parent families post birth are possible just as one-person companies are possible. One-person companies generally do not have a good chance of success, nor do one parent families. The requirements of raising a child and performing the tasks associated with maintaining a family overwhelm one person. The demands are too complex and polarized to be handled successfully by a person of one sex. This is why the vast majority of social issues can be traced back to the one parent family and most business failure to one-person companies.

Simple biology that tells us that all babies born are born to mothers. This means that by default most single parent families are females with children. This also logically means it is the fathers who were either rejected as caregivers or choose to abdicate this role.

If a child does not have a mother and father caring for it there is only one conclusion, either its biological parent abandoned it or was rejected as a parent by the other nuclear parent. If the child is not part of a biological nuclear family some moral or sociological abnormality was injected into the family.

Let’s clarify this further. Biologically and scientifically speaking the nuclear fact of mother, father, child cannot be disputed. There are no other possibilities. If we see another form or pattern then this is a result of intervention, of human intervention or biological abnormalities. It is not normal in the sense that normality is based on objective, biological necessity and unequivocal observation. Normal in this sense, within the context of this study, is that which is biologically necessary. Deviations from the normal cannot be considered normal when by definition it is a deviation from the biological norm.

If N is universal and normal is to mean anything at all then what is normal must be tied to the universality of an event. If N is the universally observed configuration of F, and R is a deviation from N and N requires F(+ v – z) = R then in all logic and reason R is a deviation of the normalcy of N and cannot be construed to be normal.

N = normalcy; F = family in the sense of a nuclear family; v = or; z = a deviant factor.

That R is not illegal is not equivalent to being normal in the logical or observational sense.

The nuclear family of mother, father and child is the normal social state of what we call a family. All other forms of family are deviations and derivatives of this basic and biological absolute.

Science has unequivocally established:

  • there are only two sexes, male and female,
  • all children are born of two parents a male and a female
  • the birth of children to a male and female creates what is called a nuclear family
  • All deviations from this are deviations due to biological or sociological distortions that are not biologically viable in the sense of being replicable or reproducible.


As the nuclear family is the unvarying natural order of things all children ought to remain preferentially in the context of a nuclear family. We say preferentially because ideally and biologically speaking there are only two options that can happen developmentally speaking. The natural order can be preserved or rejected. If we wish the human race and all of its elements to be preserved the human race has no choice but to remain true to the natural order of things totally or to a substantial degree.

Categorically and absolutely the race needs males and females, this of necessity means we need females to grow up to be females and males to be and grow up to be males. This is not philosophical obfuscation, it is not rhetorical posturing. This is scientific fact. Stressing the need for males and females is not an attempt to take the discussion beyond the bounds of human comprehension. It is scientifically demonstratable the race to persist needs males and females. What a particular social agenda needs or wants is irrelevant to the reality of biological necessity and to this discussion. We are staying as much as possible to what can be scientifically and logically demonstrated.

We believe staying within the bounds of reason and logic is a debt we owe to future generations if not ourselves.

The characteristics of a female are biologically fixed. A female is fixed by biology, but her biology has to translate into the biology of reproduction. Females must be able to attract a male and be able to breed at some point in her life. Offspring fulfill the female role. But if she will not produce offspring that is a replacement for one or both sexes her fecundity is immaterial.

Physical appearance is important because communication is important. In some people’s reality it may be important to know a person is a devotee of Marx, but others may find it vital their friends hate Marx. Subjective elements are to be discarded in dealing with sex education. We cannot make one’s political position relevant in discussions of sexual orientation.

However, the ability to be male or female is vital and an objective standard we cannot logically dispute.

There are different interpretations as to what a male or female can be. These subjective interpretations of gender need not be discussed in a science class and have no place in sex education. This is not to say gender studies cannot be pursued but this is sociology not sex. Sex education is a class based on science not politics and not on social agendas.

To establish the foundation of our discussion once again let’s remember that the nuclear family is the biological norm. The basic objective of the nuclear family is to reproduce itself, biologically speaking. Thus, the nuclear family ought to, ideally, seek to produce at least one biological male and one biological female on average. Thus, a community ought to produce sufficient of each biological sex to reproduce the population of said community.

As an aside, it is the nuclear family that is the key element. Individuals are irrelevant in this regard. If we do not have reproducing pairs and if they do not have children nothing else has significance.

Here is where subjective factors can easily enter in, however. While we have established that a female needs to be able and willing to birth children and nurture them to the point where they can reproduce is there anything that suggests a woman is other than the possession of the basic apparatus, such as womb and ovary.

We can get assume logically that a woman is not a man. If the reproductive energies are geared to different but synergic roles, then we have a bifurcation of natures to create a coherent institution called a family. How serious or important is this organizational structure? Can we marginalize the roles and merge the activities of each element and still produce a viable system? Secondary roles can and are reversed and merged but to what end? This taking what is natural and biologically based and transforming it for sociological ends is putting politics into biology and cannot be justified on any other than political grounds. If it is only justified politically it can as easily be dismissed on the same grounds.

The fact there are two sexes biologically speaking allows us and indeed demands we conclude there are two sexual roles and that each is distinct from the other. Or as we said earlier, a woman is not a man and vice versa.

If a woman is not a man logically and scientifically we are forced to concede that if we define a woman by XYZ then the male must be defined in opposite terms; men are that which are not XYZ. If we define men as containing the elements of ABC then females are humans without ABC.

Each sex has attributes peculiar to them and the absence of attributes peculiar to the other sex. Yet each is distinctly human.

Those humans that are possessors of LMN are human. LMN are not sexual characteristics or sexual delimiters.

Long hair could be a sexual delimiter defining a nubile female, but it could also be a non-specific gender identity common to both sexes. Long hair is a cultural attribution. Not saying it could not be or ought not to be a sexually specific attribute but it is a marginal element. However, the conventional picture of the nubile young woman as a creature with flowing hair is valid as one of the attributes displayed in innumerable works of art demonstrate, the possession of long hair is important to the imagery of the female.

Ought society to diminish or even invalidate the characteristics of motherhood? That is for society to decide but scientifically the full hips and breasts of woman are important to the natural activity of child birth and child rearing.

The female is a gestalt that changes from culture to culture in specifics, but the intent is always to create one pattern than communicates female and another pattern that communicates female. It is not that males and females cannot recognize each other but it assists in the enculturation of the young.

The male role is as said at least partially defined as being that which is not the role of a female. Males possess XY chromosomes whereas females are XX determined. The sex of a child is determined by the father. The female contributes an X chromosome. The male contributes either an X or a Y. If the male contributes a Y chromosome the child is a boy and if the chromosome is a Y then the child will be female.

Scientifically speaking it is one or the other. It does not matter how many mothers some say a child has its sex was determined by a father, one father meaning a human with an XY chromosome and a penis.

Attempts to create gender fluidity or androgyny has been more successful at creating a minimalist kind of female than anything approaching an equal blend of male and female characteristics, in fact if one sees a male as a strong dominant individual, androgynous persons lose everything a male has. Stripping a female of her sexuality does not make an androgynous being but a prepubescent female. Androgyny may have more to do with pedophilia than a blending of the sexes.

Twiggy, probably the first attempt at creating an androgynous super model, was 122 pounds and 5’6”. Her fame at 16 was probably an early attempt to sexualize children more than a desire to eliminate or merge sexual identity.

It is not even logically possible to desexualize that which exists for sexual gratification. Androgynous models are, at least to some degree by the very nature of their occupation, sexualized children. If androgyny does not make for a sexually attractive partner in the conventional sense, then the look has to be attuned to some psychological quirk of the viewer, i.e. their desire to see a young person as a sexually active person.

This kind of caricature is not scientifically justified. Remember we are attempting to erect a curriculum on the basis of what can be firmly established in science or at least logic.

The sexualization of the young can be given political leverage but there is nothing in nature that would justify the action. The foundation of sex education can be nothing but the nuclear family and its role in procreation. Children cannot procreate and even where the physiology exists there is more to procreation than the physical mechanisms.

We have established that no one can refute the claim that a male and a female is required to produce offspring. It is also not possible to refute the claim offspring are required for the preservation of the species. People can and do add to this foundational argument, but this is always an addition to or deletion of what is established as the normal condition of human existence.

The sexualization of children belongs in the deviant category because it has no relevance to the normalcy previously established. While it can be agreed that from a political social agenda perspective a child can be sexualized it cannot be demonstrated to be normal in the above sense. A sexualized child is nor normal within the structure of a nuclear family. Thus, pedophilia cannot be normalized but must forever remain a form of deviancy.

Sexualizing a child before maturity adds nothing to the family or to the purpose of the family unit.

The female exists to bear and nurture children and has nothing to do with responding to the gratification of someone’s fantasies.

What is possible is not what can be deemed normal and what is not normal ought not to be normalized regardless of the social agenda. A child is not the means to an end nor does the end justify making a child the means.

The nuclear family is deemed to have obligations consistent with the biological function of a bonded pair. One obligation that rests with the family unit is feminizing their girl children, by this is meant bringing girls up as girls. This is predicated on the less than outrageous notion that such a policy would ultimately fail if applied to boys. Yet, we need boys and girls to be men and woman, so the only solution is to bring up girls to be woman and as distasteful as this is to some, boys must be encouraged to become men.

It is not sufficient to bring a girl up to ten years of age or so and abdicate responsibility. We need to idealize what a woman is as a sexual entity. The nature of a woman must be centered on the most fundamentally unique aspect of a woman which is their ability to give birth. We need to strive to validate this imagery as we raise our girls. This will offend some political agendas. But no one can argue a child is born of a man and woman and sexually has to be either male or female within the normal scheme of things, and this being so they can only be in the normal sense of the word, a man or a woman when they grow up. To be anything else is to confuse and deviate from the base pattern. Thus, it behooves us to raise a child to its full mature state before we release ourselves of our parental duties.

Some might still resist the idea of there being a division of the sexes. There is a desire, they say, for equality. Equality is a political notion not transferrable to nature. Equality cannot be scientifically defined, verified or justified. In all known cases there is specialization. The sexes are specialized. This is the normal pattern. How can we make a man a neuter or a woman asexual? It is not possible. We can, and we do emasculate males and defeminize females but ultimately all this does and all it can do is halt normal development. There is no feasible way to turn a man into a woman or vice versa. All this talk about androgyny and gender fluidity is an illusion and a figment of our imagination driven by political considerations. It will never be more than a fantasy entertained to support an ideology both perverse and strange. As said, the closest thing to androgyny we can get is to arrest the child’s development.

If x is standard and conventional and y the result of serious and prolonged action upon x then y is not the natural condition of x. To argue y is normal when y requires the mean of x to be shifted is a dishonest use of the term.

Normal assumes in any incident I, x will be the outcome (. Additionally, if y is only plausible in the extreme and rare case and by the terms of its own existence necessarily superfluous or and of limited duration then the norm must be attached to the original and default setting.

Once more let’s reiterate the terms we work under. Normal is the default setting. There is no power on earth that can invalidate the need for men and woman to procreate and nothing that can halt the appearance of humans divided into one of two sexes. The preoccupation of liberals with gender is an attempt to develop a position on sex education that diverges from the fundamental facts of life. The position we take is that so far as sex education is concerned the educator needs to diverge from the truth as little as possible.

We derive from biology the nuclear family. This is the norm, the default biological reality. The nuclear family is an absolute and irrefutable necessity. Let’s be honest, here. Everything that the liberal educator wants to add to the curricula is just that, an option, an addition. We can add to the nuclear family, but we cannot remove the nuclear family, it is the nucleus of human existence. This is a solid scientific reality.

We responded to the request to permit or even encourage gender bending with the timeless query, voiced by endless generations of children: ‘Why’? Why engage in gender confusion, to promote what political agenda?

Sex education must focus on what cannot be refuted. Sex can be treated as entertainment, but it cannot be scientifically validated as this. Sex was created to give rise to creation of new life. All transformations, generalizations and effeminizing adds nothing to the biological fundamentals and takes substantial functionality away. Homosexuality has no survival value. What we need and must have is breeding pairs. Divergence from this fact adds nothing to the facts of life and takes much away at great cost.

Sex we have established is not a political subject to be debated as a means of transforming society along political lines. Whatever politics has to say about sex is inadmissible. Sociology is separate from biology and sexuality.

If government is to stay out of the bedroom, then surely it needs to stay out of our genes and sexuality.

We do not need to argue or address the question of whether or not this policy suits everyone – we can assume there are other opinions. Opinions cannot overshadow facts. Biologically it is impossible to have more than two sexes in a reproductive setting. If there are other voices they are not aligned with truth. Let them be heard outside of the classroom and outside of the childhood experience. Childhood is not a time to address a politicalized sexuality or deal with sociological debates.  Issues of sexuality are either dispassionate discussions on biological facts or political expediency masquerading as concern for children; a despicable misrepresentation of motives if ever there was one. Politics is a subject for adults, not infants or children. It behooves society to remain fundamental in its treatment of biology and sexuality as it remains fundamental in its treatment of spelling, math and chemistry.

 Stick to the basics and the well trod path. Stick to what is provable and established. There are two sexes and two contributors to a child’s birth. Each biological unit is irreplaceable in reproduction and in the overseeing of the growth process. School is a basic for basic fundamental truths, not conjecture, politics and social agendas.

For a girl to be a woman she needs to have womanhood modelled. For a boy to be a man, there must be someone to model what it means to be a man. Who believes that a male who never sees another male will grasp the full enormity of what being a male means. Can a girl brought up without someone living out motherhood understand the responsibility encapsulated by the idea of mother?

We do not doubt other familial forms are possible. We categorically state that to have a father there must be a father figure to teach the skill. To have a mother requires more than the physical equipment, there must be a life that lives out the meaning of the word; the meaning of the position. A mother is more than a capacity to give birth. This is fundamental to the nature of humanity and a recognition of our biology. A mother who abandons her children at birth fails to live up to the full meaning of the term.

There is a certain danger associated with maligning motherhood and marginalizing its practitioners. This is political activism at its worse. There is no biological basis for distorting the biological process of population regeneration and renewal. No doubt divergence can teach a divergent life but at some point, the species must rein in divergence to survive and replicate itself. Humanity has to revert back to the norm. The tolerance of diversity only underlines the necessity for normalcy to be cocooned to some degree if even the deviance is not to vanish in sterility.

Even the most ardent proponent of homosexuality has to accede to the necessity of repopulation. Anyone who subscribes so deeply to a deviant lifestyle they refuse to permit the coupling of male and female has lost all right to be considered human.

If the norm must be preserved to some degree, regardless of the agenda pursued how can that which must be set aside to permit the norm to be maintained, be itself, called normal; is it not merely an indulgence of a rich and decaying society?

So far as sexual education goes, what are we teaching? What is there to teach apart from basic biology? Are we educating children in perversity and sexual depravity simply because we want to legitimize some lifestyle we picked up? Is this diversity really a way to maintain the species, because at bottom is not this the first concern?

It seems that for some motherhood and fatherhood is maligned and marginalized to validate a deviant lifestyle which serves only to deprive children of mother and father figures, which hinders the formation of what society needs more than anything else, mothers and fathers.

Because some have left the natural use of woman do we teach this deviation to youngsters? Do we teach children about all possible deviancies when we discuss other subjects? Do we teach cannibalism in discussions about the major food groups or about murder in civics class? If we keep to the fundamentals in other subjects why is sex education required to be infinitely inclusive?

The argument that homosexuality is normal may hold up in a political rally. So, far as the teaching of children it is and must remain an abnormality meaning a divergence from the norm. Sex is for procreation and woman are created (biologically speaking), for birthing babies. If pedophilia is man leaving woman to engage in deviant sex as is bestiality in what way is homosexuality less a rejection of the normal expression of mankind’s sexual identities? Is there anyone who wishes to deny the reality of a sexual identity?

It is not whether we can consider homosexuality normal as a political gambit to garner votes and influence how voters view us. We can as human beings define and redefine concepts as we wish. If we wish to decree homosexuality normal within a political context that is our human right. Some cultures make cannibalism a normal activity, some even normalize various forms of pedophilia. These are political issues settled in the political arena. Saying homosexuality is not normal from a biological standpoint does not mean it cannot be normalized within the political realm. Humans can and do normalize every conceivable act, political normalcy can be applied to anything we choose regardless of how rare it is. However, the question must always be, are we using science to arrive at our destination or political expediency; do we seek to satisfy the demands of truth or the demands of people?

To argue that animals engage in homosexual activity is as irrelevant as arguing that animals eat their young or kill sexual rivals. We may for political reasons prefer a more politically correct term than normal in discussing sex. We could say the nuclear family is obla and homosexuality is non-obla if this is more politically palatable. Political sensitivities may need to be pandered to. But until someone can prove children can be birthed from a homosexual union the nuclear family must be assumed to be the basic truth of sexual reproduction.

Again, we are not talking about social agendas or political positions. This is not about whose political platform will garner the most votes. The truth must always aim at what is simple and provable.

What adults do is not always something to be conveyed to children. As adults we need to rely exclusively on science to guide our educational choices; not what happens in the bedroom. As soon as we open the door to the introduction of opinion we open the door to whose opinion shall be taught. Are we going to use 50 Shades Of Grey as a textbook? Is Sado Masochism normal since it is practiced? Do liberals have the guts to teach kids some woman like to be spanked, tied up and even gang-banged? Where does you politically correct line get drawn? Where does your moral outrage kick in? Whose moral boundaries are going to take precedence? Which opens the question as to the most appropriate conveyance of information regarding sex to children? Which vehicle do we use? Who determines content and timing, whose opinion is going to be introduced as valid and whose will we say is deviant?

The problem with the non-scientific approach is that it is predicated on those who hold to a particular social agenda having political power. After one side is done legislating in favor of a single perspective and they lose political power the new government begins a process of altering the direction society takes using a 90-degree alteration of the social narrative. As adults we understand why this is happening. We know it is just politics working its way through society. But these kinds of polar changes are harmful to children. Children have no idea how to make sense of what is to their parents just a political change of climate.

There is some outrage that the conservatives want to bring in drastic changes to the curricula. This outrage may be warranted from one perspective but why was such sweeping changes made in 2015 when it might have been foreseen that liberals would not remain in power forever? Why force through changes based on political majorities when majorities change? Is there not a responsibility to maintain a more muted, middle of the road position when it comes to education, so kids are not subjected to these kinds of politically, which seems to be happening at the present?

Even the attempt to bury sex education within a health curriculum was dishonest and misleading and was bound to exacerbate any issues that must have been seen. Why were not conservative groups surveyed before the curriculum was introduced?

We have to confront the cultural clash between conservatism and the modern liberalism that has harnessed sex education to its unholy agenda. This is not an attempt to demonize an agenda. It is pointless to demonize a program that has abandoned any pretence at subscribing to a moral right and wrong. The liberal program is a demonic agenda only from a religious perspective; a point of view liberals relegates to the realm of myth and bigotry. At the same time, it is unclear how Catholic schools can implement teaching on birth control and abortion when it is so outside their scope of concerns. The idea that being male or female is a social construct can or will be taught by the Catholic schools or that the clear biblical teaching that God made us male and female can or will be replaced by the 6-gender theory by Christians is politically untenable. Too much of the social agenda of liberals is not biblical and cannot be made compatible with the life of a believer. This is political polarization at its worse for it is based solely on what is called the tyranny of the majority. Democracy needs a degree of restraint to work. Catholic moral teaching forbids abortion and the use of artificial contraception. The theory of gender identity, gender expression and the idea that there are more genders than just male, and female cannot be incorporated into Christian anthropology. These matters are neither specifically sexual nor health related. They are nothing, but political maneuvers meant to outflank conservatives and their values. Certainly, we cannot believe the Left with sufficient resources could not force these curricula onto the churches but with a change of majorities, as has happened with the election of the conservatives such teachings would be just as completely and immediately reversed. This is simply to illustrates the problem of replacing science with social agendas in the class room. No one, regardless of their agenda or politics can replace the biology of sex. Men and woman make babies. That will never change.

To make matters worse the 2015 curricular instead of the focus being procreation puts, despite all of the consultations the authors argue took place, on what is supposed to be a health focused program, the emphasis on sex as a source of enjoyment and recreation. This is an odd perspective to teach considering we are talking about preteens. If this was not bad enough and almost to accentuate that the agenda has nothing to do with the normal purpose of sex, not one word of love or marriage is included. Obviously after thousands of discussions no one was found who linked sex to either love or marriage. Do we want sex to be associated with fun in the minds of children?

If we approach this subject consistently and adopt a science-based viewpoint then the above points become moot, for sex education is not to be given an adult’s agenda. Sex education is not for the puerile pleasure of deviants or the sexualization of children nor intended to promote a political agenda in which sex becomes a means of establishing a political identity. Sex education is to ensure the feminization of females and the masculinization of male children so that sex can be seen for what it is biologically speaking, the preservation of the species.

Sex education is about biology, about having children that are able and willing to have other children.

What sex education ought not to be about is what liberals have turned it into. Sex education ought not to be taken to be an opportunity to expose children to the widest range of options. The purpose of education is not to ensure every possible avenue is open to the child. If such a strategy was used consistently children would be instructed in the art of money laundering and kiting as well as bakery and carpentry. Sex education is about steering the child towards sexual development so that females become woman and males develop into men. It really is not a radical or horrendous nor complicated idea.

The fact liberals saw a need to bury sex education in a health curriculum is evidence they realized promoting the sexualization of the young would not be easily justified biologically speaking. We have noted that the children of necessity have a biological mother and a biological father. In the best-case scenario these persons model what it means to be a biological male and female. This includes a gradual introduction of the sexual roles of male and female. There is no justification or merit in introducing multiple genders or family variations in a programed geared solely towards sex education.

As the modelling is performed by the parent and the parent is the only one familiar with the state of the child’s development it is the parent who ought to meter the child’s progression into full sexual maturity. This does not preclude the assistance of experts and professionals, but the parent must control the speed and periodicity at which the subject and its various elements are introduced.

This has nothing to do with the dangers of having strangers talk to children about sexual matters and everything to do with sexualizing the child within the development framework set by the parent. Sexualization is about the child modelling the parent of the same sex, not about being able to discuss at length the merits of various forms of condoms with strangers. Nor ought we to be concerned about the felicity with which a preteen can field questions regarding their sexual preferences. Generations of kids managed to get by with colloquialisms such as 1st and 2nd base to allude to erogenous zones. So, we did not use or even know the correct scientific terminology. A lot of people still get by without knowing much about proper terminology relating to their musculature and can still complain when part of their body is sore.

The position taken here is that the child needs to mature into an adult consistent with their biology. This is not something anyone will argue against. A boy ought to mature into a man and a girl into a woman. Let’s assume we are not going to be fought on this issue. The child needs to mature and must mature in a biologically correct way. If this is so what path to maturity is the shortest most direct route. The simplest path is defined by genitalia. This may not suit some adults, they may see merit in a more circuitous route, one they can assist with and guide, and to some degree manipulate. There is no scientific basis for inserting political positions into a child’s education. If you have a political or social agenda take it to adults or if it requires bending young people to your will, abandon it.

To state the truth in the simplest and scientifically solid way, a child must mature into a sexual being consistent with his or her genitalia and procreative capacity.  The species can withstand variations from this norm, but this diversity never, ever strengthens us as a biological entity. At some point, should the deviation from the mean go on long and severe enough conscious efforts must be made to reverse the process or see the utter destruction of the species. This is logical biological truth that cannot be disputed. 

We do not need to say it is impossible for a child to resist the maturation process, nor must we affirm that there are only two possible outcomes to maturation, we only need say that from a scientific perspective the assumption must be made that one of two sexes is the norm.

There is only one thing a child needs to learn as regards sex and that is how to be a sexual adult. There is no other absolutely, necessary learning to be done. If there is additional learning to be done let it be done at an age when he or she can acquire this learning with the ability to assess and decipher what is being taught. Remembering always this is political indoctrination not science and not biology.

Governments must address the issue of sex education from a perspective in which the actual biological needs of the child are considered, not the political expediency of politically motivated adults.

Educational materials and courses need to be at the disposal of parents. The rate at which these materials are introduced must be under the control of parents. The breadth of the subject matter must be under the control of parents. The objective must always be the sexual maturation of the child in the most direct and uncomplicated way possible. It is not the classrooms job to teach a child to be a trucker or doctor. These are left for when such knowledge becomes relevant. The school system exists to educate the child not indoctrinate. It is not up to the school systems to make all possible choices known as if all choices are equally valid. There is no perfect world the school system is to be committed to. Science is sufficient when it comes to chemistry and economics. Science is sufficient when it comes to sex education. It is simply a matter of not adding to that which is proven and provable and can be established by biologic science.




The Hysteria Over Sex Education

The hysteria generated by Doug Ford decision to rethink the sex ed curricula is based on two mental lapses, easily repaired.

The first mental block was the lefts failure to realize Fords decision has nothing to do with what the older curricula does not contain. The dispute is not so much over content but scheduling. All those elements mentioned by the left missing from the older version, will do doubt be shifted into the program developed by the Ford government. So far as I know no one opposes the material. What is in dispute is the age appropriateness of the material being offered.

Not once have I seen Andrea Horwath openly demand 11-year-old girls be taught about anal sex, why not. This is what is being disputed. Why is she not campaigning for the necessity of a 7-year old to learn the language of sexual organs, (rather than wee-wee which is apparently too childish for the NDP). Why has she not explained why it is vital we shield children from discussions about love, the age of consent, marriage and abstinence? No one is worried about teaching computer skills to kids, as if they needed to be taught them.  In grade 3 at age 8 schools teach a child they can have 2 mothers or 2 fathers, biologically speaking this is impossible. Is sex education about biology or the imposition of a social agenda?

The real issue is technical. The left asserts gender has nothing to do with sex, the curricular clearly states gender identity is divorced from sexuality, and they are right in this. The curricular clearly states a child has a penis (male) or a vagina (female). The biological fact of two sexes cannot be denied the biological necessity of the nuclear family cannot be made redundant by maudlin comments about diversity.

Gender studies is about sociology, not biology. Sex education is founded in the biological fact of XX and XY chromosomes and no amount of hand wringing, and liberal hysteria will alter this.

Sex education needs to be based on science and objectivity as regards biological roles. Leave gender studies in sociology along with discussions on using social media sites safely.

The Aggrieved Property Owner

Are you an aggrieved property owner? Are you angry because you feel your rights are being abused? Have you worked all your life to get things you need and then saw what you had worked for being systematically removed from you?

Like many others you did not ask for or expect a free ride. You did your part and you assumed you would not be treated worse than those who gave as little as possible and took what they could.

You help the needy, the sick, the old and the disabled. You accepted you would need to carry the burdens of the less fortunate but the need never declined. Year after year the need grows yet we are hardly better off than those who never lifted a finger to help anyone, let alone us.

We cannot go shopping without beggars inside and outside of every store. Foodbanks need our help as do hospitals, churches, the victims of natural disasters and every kind of charity one can think of. Our leaders send billions into the coffers of other nations while the national accounts bleed red. 

But do we have any right to complain? Are we heirs to white privilege and European cultural arrogance? Is the world’s boarders natural and empirically valid?

What right has anyone to claim they are patriots? Are we not all equal persons with an equal say to the earth?

Liberals suggest people have no right to a nation state and that all claims to lands and culture are simply do to racism, xenophobia and cultural snobbery.

The empirical response to this would be to ask for empirical evidence. It might be suggested we look for actual lines where boarders are meant to be or a sign that tells us this bit of land belongs to a specific group be virtue of natural law. Not seeing these things liberals say the conservative position is subjective and even vile.

To devise an experiment to arbitrate between these two extremes we have to find out where the line dividing the two points exists. No one argues that a boarder is a natural division even when natural barriers are used as a national boarder.

The fact that a boarder may simply be concrete pillars put into the ground every several hundred feet does not make it less of a boarder than a mountain range or a barricade defended by armed soldiers.

It is nonsensical to say boarders do not exist because they are not natural because it is not because of nature why they are said to exist.

If we reject the validity of a boarder around a nation then do we similarly eliminate those around a city, a province or state or parish? Do we eliminate lines on a road, property boundaries, and even the line between right and wrong because none of these things have their origin in the material world, all are human creations? Yes, we can prove boarders are not natural phenomenon but what has this to do with the issue?

We can prove that alligator skin leaves do not exist, but the finding does not give us any new information or a stronger foundation on which to make other predictions.

Good and evil are not separate qualities because there is a line between them, two nations are not divided one from the other because someone notice a line was drawn by nature. God and the devil are not distinct beings because there is a line that cuts what would otherwise be a single creature in two.

Canada and the USA regardless of their similarities are different, that is why we are not the same and it is the fact that we are different that creates a boarder. It is not the boarder that produces the US and Canada it is Canada and the US that creates the boarder.

If we mix oil and water, we see a viscous barrier. This boarder does not divide two different viscosities, it is the viscosities that produces the illusion of a line. Thus, we see the argument that nature does not produce boarders is a non-issue. There is no boarder to remove in the sense that liberals want a boarder eliminated. If they cannot see a line, then they cannot go to a nations outer limits and pick up the boarder and take it away. What needs to be done is to remove the differences that produced the boarder in the first place.

Empiricism does not just produce experiments it demonstrates when an experiment is inappropriate. The boarder between the US and Mexico, for example, could be eliminate in a legal and political sense but the cultural and historic factors that led to the boarder will remain. The argument that boarders need to come down is based on a failure to understand what a boarder is and its purpose. Oil and water will not mix and other things are divided because they do not mix well and if missed lose their identity. If liberals wish to eliminate the boarder what they need to do is demonstrate that the national identity is empirically invalid.

So, far as the claim that boarders do not exist, that claim is validated and judged empirically without content. That which does not exist cannot be proved to exist and since no one has claimed boarders are a natural phenomenon the positive finding has no empirical consequence. No predictions are generated by the conclusion.



Jesus Is Not A Liberal


The common man sees Jesus as a liberal. A social gospel was established on that basis, some went so far as to fashion a prosperity gospel. The inarguable fact that Jesus was not a capitalist does not give anyone the right to accuse him of socialism. It is a perverse kind of theology that declares God is dependent on the state for his Plan to unfold. Too many see God is as limited to the same economic choices they have. Too few considered that perhaps the solution was to follow Gods economic teachings rather than trying to force God to follow theirs. Regardless, Jesus is not a liberal.



Many there are who think Jesus was a liberal, perhaps even a Communist. People see his love and charity as examples of liberalism and his injunction to give their property to the poor as a kind of early communism. This is not so. Jesus is not, was not and cannot be a liberal. Liberals are by necessity atheists.

However, no one is likely to claim Christ was a capitalist. But to admit he did not promote private enterprise capitalism is not support for the liberal argument. Indeed, if we assume Jesus is God is it even reasonable to suppose he and his economic teachings are not going to reflect what secular writers advocate.

This conclusion may appear to pose a dilemma for Christians. If Jesus was not a capitalist and not a liberal socialist what was he and what does this mean for the church? If he was neither are we to be one or the other?

It may be that many Christians are glad Jesus was not a capitalist and that his views cannot be equated with the libertarian viewpoint. Maybe his unequivocal opposition to greed may please Christians because for most of us this means the only possible conclusion we can come to is that no matter what else he says the only thing he could be given that he was not a capitalist is a communist. Why this matter is because we understand socialism is not a reasonable idea. Christ may not be a capitalist but for us to be socialist is not an option so this part of Christs teachings can be safely ignored.  Socialism is something for perfect beings to engage in and human fools and we do not consider ourselves neither so we are supporters of Adam Smith’s book of ideas not God’s.  We carry on being capitalists secure in our confidence that not even Christ himself can call us out on this score. Not even God Himself can really expect us to be communists. He seemingly left us no choice but to be capitalists.

Possibly we are wrong.

Maybe God knows more about economics than either Karl Marx or Adam Smith and the Chicago School. What if humans have got it wrong both times? What if the choice is not between communism and capitalism but between God and Babylon?

The most general definition of a liberal is one who freely gives of what they have, time or money or other asset. A liberal is also free of restraint apart of those he puts on himself, such as no liberal who hates going to bed early will believe it is a moral necessity to retire early. A liberal who cannot comprehend the killing of another human being will not think killing is a moral right in some situations.

Liberals tend to be tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others. Not always a trait one sees in Jesus. The only intolerance liberals are guilty of is being intolerant of any restrictions being placed on their freedom to make free will choices without consequences. This is why they hate Jesus, Jesus makes them look bad and tells them the problem is facing them in the mirror and they do not like to hear this. Liberals do not like the idea of having to change.

Liberals are open to new behavior and willing to discard traditional values, social mores and established practices. A liberal politically is someone who favors gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual. This suggests liberals believe government should be active in supporting social and political change. But more importantly they look to government guarantees of individual rights and liberties. In fact, they rely on social institutions to set the moral tone because liberals do not have a fixed moral compass. Thus, liberal morality is subject to being normalized by constant subjection to a mode of behavior that might be offensive in its initial exposure but without a true moral center any behavior no matter how repugnant initially will eventually be considered acceptable and over time will become the new norm.

But behind this accent on freedom for the individual is their reliance on the state to ensure they do not experience any consequences for acting as if there were no barriers. They want to be able to give freely and not suffer any setbacks or undue hardships from their careless behavior. If they do not feel to give to a cause, liberals expect the state to step up and ensure the cause is funded through social means.  

Liberals do not believe there ought to be a need to choose. Consequences imply a need to consider costs and benefits. Liberals tend to be guided by emotion and just wish to enjoy life. They do not wish the responsibility of trying to figure out what a best course of action might be within any given situation.

Liberal freedom means they can make a choice without giving up anything. One could say they desire to have their cake and eat it too.

Liberal morality comes from their personal values that is their likes and dislikes. They expect a strong state to reflect their personal bias. If they are passive and fear violence their personal morality will reflect a strong pacifist position. If they are aggressive and strong they will want the state to let them settle their own score. The morality of an aggressive liberal will be poles apart from the moral code of a more pacifist atheist. Liberals do not care for tradition or moral codes or any external or objective restraint as this takes away their personal freedom. A less personal bias also hinders their adoption of a more customized morality. To subscribe to an absolute moral code or the idea that morality is anything more than the produce of the human will is to subscribe to limitations being put on their freedom. If anything typifies a liberal it is their focus on personal freedom.

Liberals believes that if he or she sees something is wrong and he or she cannot fix it with the assets at their disposal then the state ought to step in and ensure the situation is corrected. Liberals are morally naïve. They think their values are important. Liberals think that individual sensitivities are of such import that the state ought to ensure the individuals sense of entitlement is responded to. One is not to feel neglected or less than special. If something makes a liberal emotionally uncomfortable then the state must find some way to stop the triggering incident from happening.

There is no conception that uncomfortable situations might or ought to be endured. The liberal feels entitled to always feel emotionally justified.

If you do a liberal wrong this means the liberal feels wronged. If the liberal feels wrong this is categorical proof the liberal has been wronged. Even if the wrong was not done by you nor do the individual liberal himself if he or she feels wronged then an apology has to be forthcoming. For a liberal their emotional state is the deciding factor.

Needless to say none of this sounds like Jesus.

Jesus never considered himself entitled though of all persons he was the one person who had a right to feel entitled. Jesus never claimed his feelings had to be respected. He made himself of no account. He never went to the Romans and complain the Scribes and Pharisees were triggering him. He did not whine about being bullied by unsympathetic Jews. Jesus made himself lower not higher and of no account: Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Jesus, never told Scribe or Pharisee his feelings were hurt and they ought not to bully him. Jesus is not a liberal.

When asked by the rich man what he needed to do to be saved Jesus told him to sell what he had, give the proceeds to the poor and follow him. The rich man demurred. Jesus never called him a racist, right wing fascist or white supremacist. Jesus recognized the man’s right to his property and his right to dispose of it as he wished or not dispose of it at all. Jesus was not an Alt Leftist nor a liberal.

When Ananias and Sapphira sold a parcel of land, and kept back some of the proceeds they were killed, not for being selfish but for lying to the lord. No one told them they had to sell their land selling it was their choice. The disciples did not say they had to pay capital gains nor give 1/10th of all they had to the church. Selling the land for the brethren was their choice however, once they had made this choice and said the value belonged to God holding back some of this was stealing from God. 

Acts 5:1-10.  But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

Charity is not unknown to liberals but they rely more heavily on government programs than Jesus would advocate. Jesus expected people to give from the heart and for the giving to be selfless. I do not think he would have agreed to the rule of many school boards that students had to serve as volunteers for a certain number of hours to graduate. Being forced to be charitable is not what charity is about.

Liberals do believe in private ownership or most do but ultimately ownership is not a right most liberals put much weight on or think highly of. Nothing really belongs to anyone in the liberal way of thinking. Ownership is contingent upon social needs. Perhaps liberals are resentful of Gods claim to the earth. Possession of property for a liberal is by the grace of the government. Therefore, ownership like morality is always contingent upon the government. If the need is greater elsewhere then ones property may be confiscated and assigned to a higher good.

Liberalism has a strong social engineering component therefore liberals are subject to the normalization of what would have traditionally been seen as repugnant activities. Gender confusion has resulted from the liberal sense that no one can impose a world view on anyone else. The individual has to be free to choose his or her or its gender.

All the resources of the land are viewed as material to be given up freely for the greater good. The liberal imagines his or her own imaginary generosity ought to be equaled by the rest of the world. Liberals see those with resources as a mine to be quarried for assets to achieve the ideological end to which they aspire. Government for a liberal is a way for personal goals to become a manifestation of government policy.

The problem for a liberal is that he sees his or her resources as the means for the fulfillment of his freedom but the rights of others to their goods becomes a hindrance to the fulfillment of the liberal social agenda.

The more a liberal is able to implement this transcendence of the individual from a simple part of a social group into a tool for achieving a social agenda the more the state and its programs move from conventional liberalism based on personal freedom to socialism and finally to communism. 

Personal freedom is hindered by a state whose social agenda is not geared to creating liberty for the liberal. But the more the state becomes the agent through which freedom is sought the more freedom is lost. But liberalism cannot exist without the state. The personal liberal agenda and the social agenda of liberalism even though they often conflict both require an interventionist state. Despite what is often argued Jesus never supported the state. At the very beginning when Israel demanded a king as the pagans did the state was declared an act denying the authority of God. The state however continued and it was given authority to protect the church. Jesus told us the State is not a threat to good works but he was talking about the just state. 

1 Samuel 8:5-7 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.  But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

The state was given the sword but the power of the state was not to be feared by those who did good works.

Romans 13: 1-8. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Yet how can one reconcile the words of God that the state is a rejection of God’s Suzerainty with Jesus statement ‘Whoseoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God …’. Those who say the state is part of Gods Plan face a paradox. Did God change his mind about the state being a rejection of himself? Was God wrong either about the state being a rejection of him or about man needing to obey the state? Or, is there a possibility mankind has interpreted one or other of these passages wrongly? Do you think you might be in error and not God?

The first statement seems plain enough to assume no error in interpretation can be made and so if this cannot be misconstrued it is fair to assume that God is not a supporter of governments no matter what the other statement says or seems to say.

The main thrust of the passage says Christians are not to precipitate evil. This is not a new teaching of one opposed to anything else the bible says. A government Jesus says is not a terror to good works. Lets assume the state is not godly but instead of opposing them focus on obedience and hope these leaders will come to God and learn the error of their ways. We are too bey and give them their dues. But in the final analysis he also declares we are to owe no man anything. But to love one another.

So lets play this out. A king comes to power and rules the nation, the people obey him. But what is the nature of a king or other leader? The probability is that the more one obeys the more power they are likely to seek. What is going to happen is that mankind in not opposing the ruler will heap coals of condemnation upon their heads. But the other point is that if everyone fully obeys the ruler what need is there for the ruler?

Rulers are not a terror to good works but who defines the good works? At some point the rule of man and the rule of God will be shown to be incompatible. However, it is not Christians who ought to precipitate rebellion.

This is not the place for a solution to the dilemma of the state to be gone into, needless to say if one really followed Christ the state would not exist simply because there would be no need for it to exist. Mankind created the need for the state by his disobedience. Jesus is not a liberal that he sees a need for the state were we following him.


Jesus never taxed anyone nor demanded they give their wealth to others but he insisted those who did were wiser than those who lived by greed and who amassed wealth for themselves. Liberal ideology is based on social engineering, the redistribution of resources to reflect a particular vision of what the New World Order ought to look like. Liberals may preach the joy of giving but they do not rely on the generosity of man they back up their agenda with the power of the state.

The economics of liberals which includes capitalism is predicated on greed and the legitimizing function of the state to assign and defend private capital. Only a liberal believes happiness is based on the possession of private property, Jesus never said this but Jesus is not a liberal.

The state never attempted to lessen its power and legitimacy to ensure God was given His due. The state has sought to increase its power and centrality before man but in the process lost legitimacy before God.

Jesus also scorned those who used the accumulation of wealth to reduce risk insisting risk could not be reduced in any meaningful way by large accumulations of wealth. We are even told not to worry about tomorrow. So, it seems God has a way to care for us that does not involve personal worry and personal accomplishment.

The liberal system relies on insurance to reduce risk but God wants us to rely on him and the church. If we loved God and our neighbor none of us would experience risk, if a man’s house burned down his neighbors would replace it. If a family fell on hard times his friends and neighbors would assist them to get back on their feet. There would be no need for insurance if we followed Jesus.

If Capitalism is about personal gain and personal accomplishment and a reliance on the individual’s ability to amass personal possessions and Jesus mocks this then Jesus is not a liberal. If Jesus told us to love one another and love our neighbor and not expect them to rely on the state for succor then Jesus is not a liberal and not a socialist. Liberalism go-to guy is government, not God. Liberalisms object of veneration is the self, not Jesus. Liberalism is not compatible with God or Christianity. Jesus is not a liberal.