Guttmacher Institute Says Latin American Children Must Learn Homosexual Sex

By | August 10, 2017
sex-banner

NEW YORK, August 11 (C-Fam) A 2017 report from Guttmacher Institute confirms that in order to teach “comprehensive sexuality education,” nations much teach very young children about same-sex activities, and may not teach objections to abortion or to premature sexual activity.

The Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of abortion giant Planned Parenthood, recently promoted a study on Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programs in Guatemala, Peru, Ghana and Kenya to compare and evaluate States’ progress. The report confirms the worst fears that parents and government officials have about the contents of “comprehensive” sexuality education, a controversial term in UN policy debates.

According to the report, all of states’ curricula lack “comprehensiveness.” Too often, the authors lament, teachers and instructors promote abstinence as the best means to avoid both pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

“Professors transmit contradictory messages,” such as “sexual relations are dangerous,” and “it is better not to have them before marriage,” says the Guatemala study. The same report claims teachers provide “incorrect information,” when they say condoms are sometimes ineffective.

Contradicting the Guttmacher study, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has said the most reliable way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is “to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.” International Planned Parenthood Federation has acknowledged that condoms have limited effectiveness in averting pregnancies.

The Guttmacher country reports further complain children are not sufficiently instructed on “sexual orientation, homosexuality, and sexual diversity.”

The report says research in Ghana and Kenya suggests “further steps should be taken to demystify and de-sensationalize sexuality among adolescents.” The authors say primary schools must teach such programs “given the significant proportion of students who are sexually active [in Ghana] by the age of 15.”

Notwithstanding a reference to the need for “age-appropriateness,” these reports do not define what that would mean.

International agreement on sex education provides not only for age-appropriateness, but also for parents’ prior rights to educate their children. These reports, inversely, suggest it is parents who should be educated, “so that they will support CSE.”

These findings are consistent with UNFPA’s definition of CSE, which forms the basis of Guttmacher’s research.

According to UNFPA, CSE implies “a holistic vision of sexuality and sexual behavior, which goes beyond a focus on prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The UN agency explicitly focuses on the need to teach children about different “sexual orientations.” It maintains that CSE enables children to “acquire accurate information about … gender roles; sexual behavior and sexual diversity.”

Most countries implementing CSE at the national level—often due to pressure from UN agencies—invoke sovereignty to limit and specify the contents and methods of CSE programs. This includes ensuring that the prior rights of parents, as well as their religious views, are respected. The Guttmacher report criticizes such cut outs, in particular religious freedom.

The report on Peru argues CSE programs are not “comprehensive” due to “resistance by conservative groups to the inclusion of abortion, sexual orientation, and other topics.” It claims the “strong presence of conservative groups, with fundamentalist religious beliefs” interfered with the adoption of CSE programs in Guatemala. “The clear interference of the Church,” it says, “expresses the low levels of development and tolerance.”

These reports were largely funded by the Netherlands and Sweden. Experts of Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) also contributed to the reports.