Why don’t we just admit it. Child abuse is legal in this country.
We call it sex education. But, in truth, it is child abuse. Modern sex education abuses children by stripping them of their innocence. It sexualizes our children. Comprehensive sex education incorporates sexuality into language, thinking skills, health, science, and life-style.
Educators and parents (consciously or not) put their trust in a child abuser named Alfred Kinsey. He is called the father of modern sex education. Children, he said, are “sexual from birth.” Few people paid any attention to the fact that Kinsey used known pedaphiles to experiment on children for the purpose of research. His twisted documentation made its way into textbooks. Homes. Churches. Those who share Kinsey’s disrespect for life and the innocence of children stood ready profit. To further loosen moral restraints.
Removing the innocence of childhood has created a flourishing market for retailers. The advertising industry. Pharmaceutical companies. Healthcare. Planned Parenthood. Who other than this government-subsidized monolith more unashamedly vies for the role of sex educator, pushes all manner of sexual paraphernalia, and then provides abortion services (for a fee, you understand).
I haven’t always used the term “child abuse” to describe sex education. It was Douglas Gresham, the step-son of C.S. Lewis who helped me see it for what it is. I had written Gresham to invite him as a speaker for Lutherans For Life. I happened to mention personal efforts to help my church understand the dangers of sex education. You are right to do so, he said, because “modern sex education is child abuse.” Gresham knows what he’s talking about. He ministers to women who’ve suffered sexual abuse and the loss of life through abortion that often follows years of abuse. I, too, have heard the painful stories of women who became promiscuous after being exposed to early instruction in sexuality or blatantly sinful abuse.
For years, I traveled here and there speaking to boys, girls, and their parents. I did not explain the intimacies of sex, but rather the uniqueness of male and female. This was received as a strange and novel idea. Maybe not surprising considering that moms and dads had been under the influence of Kinsey, too. I kept asking: Why would we want to teach our children about all things pertaining to sex before first mentoring them to be boys? Girls? On the path to Biblical manhood. Womanhood.
Churches have failed the youngest generations. That’s what happens when we are deceived. Fooled. The world stands before us, hissing, “Did God really say . . . ?” We look around to see new trends. Sophistication. Contemporary teaching. Then, we fall into doubt. We rationalize. And we play the game. The world wins when we are distracted from our vocation of instructing children in purity to instead educate them in sex. So, along with others, I continue to encourage my church to please consider the source of modern sex education. To refuse to wrap Jesus around worldly opinions and trends.
This mother and grandmother has sensitively-in tune antenna. I sense, hear, and see that modern sex education is recruitment into sexuality. Therefore, it is child abuse.
Modern sex education:
- Is not anatomy class.
- Fails to guard the innocence of children.
- Breaks down inhibitions by placing boys and girls together in the same classroom.
- Instructs children to be “comfortable with their bodies.” (And so they are… with girls having no clue as to why two cups and a thong might attract un-gentlemanly attention.)
- Tempts children to believe they are, first and foremost, “sexual beings.”
When we believe that we are “sexual beings,” then it only follows that we have the “right” to be “sexual.” That we “need” to be “sexual.” And, in today’s culture, no one should deny “my rights.” No one should deny “my needs.” Well, here’s the truth that I will continue to proclaim: We are — first and foremost — human beings, made in the image of God and, although fallen from that image, we are called to holy living as a man or a woman. Equal, but different. Can you imagine how that changes the way we see ourselves and others? The choices we make? The way we treat one another?
The media and the general public is angry when a priest sexually abuses a child. We should be. But, where is our righteous anger when children fall under the tutorage of Planned Parenthood? SIECUS? LGBT and GLSEN-approved textbooks? Projects such as “It Gets Better,” the “bullying” program initiated by homosexual advocate and leading “sex-advice” columnist Dan Savage? (Warning: All of these sites are graphic.)
Children are not on this earth for our use. They are gifts from God. They are treasures of Jesus Christ. I stand on this truth as a woman. A mother. A grandmother. Try to prove me wrong. Take your case before the Creator. Question your reasons for defending sex education and the source of your information.
Educating children in sex is cruel. It is a far cry from a parent’s role to instruct sons and daughters in purity. Remembering our own mistakes, we may fear for our children, but comprehensive sex education does not protect young hearts, minds and souls. Instruction in purity does. It allows us to protect our children in ways we, perhaps, were not.
What can a parent do? For starters, teach boys what it means to be a man. Girls what it means to be a woman. There are only two sexes, equal but different. Teach respect for both. Resist falling for the lie that “experts” know better how to raise your children. Help children and teens set goals. Discuss the consequences of choices. Remind them that their bodies are not their own to do with as they please, but creations of God and valued at high price (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).
There is a time for everything. Childhood is a time for innocence. Therefore, keep the fence up and the gate closed.
Ezerwoman's Blog 
Sexual Menu?
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Relationships, tagged children, faithfulness, future of marriage, generations, harm, infidelity, Iowa, man, Mercatornet, monogamy, New York, parenting, same-sex marriage, sexual menu, social trends, suffering, woman on July 16, 2011| Leave a Comment »
I disagree. So does Michael Cook, the editor of Mercatornet. In his article of July 11, he asks: “Anything else on the menu?”
He offers three reasons why the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will, indeed, affect our culture. All come from authors featured in the New York Times. First, Michael Cook notes the commentary of Katherine M. Franke, a Columbia University law professor. She confessed that she really didn’t want to marry her long-time lesbian partner anyway. Why lose the flexibility and benefits of living as domestic partners? Cook quotes professor Franke, saying as far as she was concerned, “we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security.”
“One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships?” Cook asks. “How long is the menu?”
Cook offers a second reason why legalizing same-sex “marriage” will impact society by highlighting another article in the Times by Ralph Richard Banks. Banks is a professor at Stanford Law School. What comes after gay “marriage”? Banks “puts his money on polygamy and incest” because legal prohibitions on either practice are losing strength. Society forbade them in the past because they were seen as “morally reprehensible;” therefore, society felt “justified in discriminating against them.” I follow Banks’ reasoning. Just as homosexual advocates are working hard to shift our thinking and normalize the behavior God calls a sin, so will advocates of polygamy and incest.
Two more behaviors, Cook notes, are added to the “menu of [sexual] options.”
The third reason why legalized same-sex “marriage” will have a domino affect on the culture is voiced by Dan Savage. The Times describes Savage as “America’s leading sex-advice columnist.” He is syndicated in at least 50 newspapers. Here’s what Cook writes about Savage. “Savage, who claims to be both ‘culturally Catholic’ and gay, thinks that gay couples have a lot to teach heterosexual couples, especially about monogamy. Idealising monogamy destroys families, he contends. Men are simply not made to be monogamous. Until feminism came along, men had mistresses and visited prostitutes. But instead of extending the benefits of the sexual revolution to women, feminism imposed a chastity belt on men. ‘And it’s been a disaster for marriage,’ he says. What we need, in his opinion, is relationships which are open to the occasional fling — as long as partners are open about it.”
Cook continues, “Traditional marriage — well, actually real marriage — is and has always been monogamous and permanent. There have been and always will be failures. But that is the ideal to which couples aspire. They marry ‘for better or worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part’. The expectation is exclusivity in a life-long commitment.”
Cook believes that legalization of same-sex “marriage” will most assuredly “affect the attitudes of young couples who are thinking of marriage a decade from now . . . it will be one of a number of options . . . they will have different expectations . . . marriage will include acceptance of infidelity, will not necessarily involve children, and will probably only last a few years.”
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” in New York say it’s good for marriage. Cook concludes:
“In a way, they’re right. Just as World War II was good for Germany because out of the ashes, corpses and rubble arose a heightened sense of human dignity and a democratic and peaceful government, same-sex marriage will heighten our esteem for real marriage. But in the meantime, the suffering will be great.”
Amen.
Mercatornet: Navigating modern complexities
Check it out!
Read Full Post »