Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'sex education'.
Okay, I'll admit that I'm not the one to say that the RP's Constitution seems a bit f#&ked up, but there it is. I was reading the Star today and one of the editorialist (I think his last name was Sison) had a peice about the fact that Sex Ed can't really be taught here because there is a Constitutional provision that negates it. After I did the proverbial head shake and WTF?, I read the rest of the piece. Apparently, there is a clause somewhere that says that formal education is secondary to the teachings of parents and guardians. Attempts to institute a formal sex ed class country wide was met with contempt at the thought of wasting tax money on something that must be taught at home. (Right, Mom and Dad have nine kids...they are definetky the ones Junior should be listening to.) Many private schools skirt the issue under the pretext of religion or provide abooklet for Mom and Dad to share with the spawn. That must be a comfortable dinner chat. Seriously, who can shed some light on this mystifying use of legalese? If this is true, is there a more important reason to rewrite the Constitution? We already have more mouths than we can feed and abuse the land with consumables and waste for the nearly ninety million who call this beautiful land home. Condoms are not the answer if Junior doesn't know what it's for.