Home > jc de los reyes, reproductive health, RH Bill 5043 > how did sex education become immoral and leads to wrong moral development?

how did sex education become immoral and leads to wrong moral development?

the DepEd is set to pilot test sex education for grade schoolers. Ang Kapatiran, the political party used by presidentiable jc de los reyes has filed suit in a court to stop the program from proceeding.

in their suit, they implied teaching sex education to students destroys the moral character of the students? since when did knowledge and a better understanding of your own body become a destroyer of moral character?

DepEd will not be teaching the students to engage in sex, they will be teaching them  about what they will eventually learn by themselves. and as these things are, that is always a much more dangerous thing. the incidence of teen pregnancies has been rising, to make the point.

as one 14 year old girl told me –  i know what a knife is and what it can do.  i know that to stab someone with a knife will kill the person but i have never done it. i have not stabbed someone with a knife.

knowledge does not always result to a bad thing. there are other factors that affect action or inaction.

here is one bit of knowledge – we are glad jc de los reyes did not win the presidency.

The petitioners said that the DepEd’s Memorandum No. 261 on sex education was unconstitutional since it “[violates] substantive due process and [violates] the primary right of parents to the development of the moral character of their children.”

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100622-276874/Only-courts-can-stop-sex-ed-says-DepEd

The project would be pilot-tested this school year in Grades 5 and 6 classes and in high schools in Olongapo City, Ifugao, Mountain Province, Masbate, Bohol, Eastern Samar, Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Sultan Kudarat.

For Grade 5, sex education would be included in the Science and Health subject that would have lessons on the reproductive system.

For Grade 6, it would be integrated in Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan and it would include lessons on the “proper behavior between peers of different gender,” personal hygiene, and the problems caused by unwanted pregnancy.

Valisno explained that the program was initiated in 2005 and that DepEd was on the “second batch” of pilot-testing to decide if some items in the teaching modules should be deleted before it is implemented throughout the public school system. She also clarified that the UNFPA was no longer funding the project.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100622-276874/Only-courts-can-stop-sex-ed-says-DepEd

  1. June 23, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Exactly the right question to ask J.C. De los Reyes.

    Besides, does the Memorandum prohibits, THUS VIOLATES, parents’ PREROGATIVE of teaching birds and bees at home?

    • June 23, 2010 at 7:35 am

      it is the duty of parents to teach values they believe in to their children with or without sex education in the schools and with or without RH Bill 5043.

    • June 23, 2010 at 10:01 am

      Wrong comparison and application of principle. The memorandum does not prohibit anything, rather it does what it should not.

      “The State shall defend: (1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood; and (4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.” (Art XV Sec 3, Constitution). The contraceptive mentality of the DepEd curriculum and the Catholic principles that true Catholics live by cannot be reconciled. For the DepEd to insist on it is to violate the religious rights of the Catholic families. Were family associations such as Couples for Christ and other pro-life families invited, heard, and actually considered before the program was approved?

      Do we need to prove more than one Constitutional violation before it would be taken seriously? Sound moral judgment is enough (even without the Constitution) to prove that DepEd’s act is inappropriate.

      • June 23, 2010 at 10:02 am

        That was a reply for timpaul.

      • June 23, 2010 at 5:58 pm

        “The memorandum does not prohibit anything, rather it does what it should not.

        Exactly my point, wilberg. I can not understand the point of kapatiran’s suit?

        • June 24, 2010 at 1:19 pm

          Again, DepEd does what it should not. And again “again”, it violates the law as mentioned above.

          • June 24, 2010 at 2:06 pm

            Exactly, how does the memo prohibit the primary right of parents to develop moral character in their children as claimed by Kapatiran? With or without the memo, I can still teach my children about penis and vagina, right? This is my point of contention not what the “memo does what it should not.” Which is another point of discussion.

            • June 25, 2010 at 4:53 pm

              Educate me if you will but I cannot find from this article nor from the Inquirer’s that Kapatiran accuses DepEd of prohibiting something. If they do, then I believe AKP must have a wrong conclusion. What the DepEd does is it violates the rights of the parents. Besides, it could not in anyway or any reason prohibit parents from anything. It has no power to do so. Both you, if you are a parent, and your child’s teacher, if he/she is well trained, may and should talk about penis and vagina. However, teachers should be limited within the scope of anatomy, physiology, and hygiene. Parents are the ones who should tell their children when, how, why, and in what context it should be used. The arguments of Kapatiran as per Inquirer’s report has solid grounds. If somebody has any other article where the party has been reported saying something strange, please let me know.

  2. June 23, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Despite advantages in knowledge, technology and science, most retain the Dark-age mentality of kowtowing to the church wishes in almost everything in life. Or else there will be hell to pay…

    Decades went by before the church finally believed the earth is really round. And they have persecuted Galileo for it and those who believed him. The present is no different from the past. The few with a different view from the church will be persecuted.

    • June 23, 2010 at 10:06 am

      Whoever wants to learn the Catholic teaching about sexuality, read and learn the Theology of the Body. It is full of sex talk, not like what ignorant people claim.

  3. June 23, 2010 at 10:27 am

    the fact is almost all parents do not talk to their children about sex. they lear about it on their own from their peers or porn. that is a very dangerous thing as it does put sex in a very distorted way.

    gtetting the schools and teachers to teach children about sex is a much better option. it will be done preofesionally and in a very structured way.

    even if its taugght in school, parents should discuss sex with their children and discuss what they learned in school so that the parent will get involved in the learning process and will allow the parent to define the values the parent believes in.

    • June 23, 2010 at 12:04 pm

      That is almost my point in the article Usaping Sex sa Paaralan [http://mangingibig.blogspot.com/2009/12/usaping-sex-sa-paaralan.html] that I have written last year. The only idea that I cannot agree with is that “getting the schools and teachers to teach children about sex is a much better option. it will be done profesionally and in a very structured way.” Even today’s general values education is not better than what good and well-trained parents can give their children. When I graduate from high school, I received the “Best in Values Education”, “Most Well-Behaved”, “Most Responsible”, and “Most Trustworthy” awards, but I cannot attribute it to the school’s “structured and professional” way of teaching. I was and still am very positively critical of teachers, parents, and superiors. It would take at least two generations for our teachers to be able to teach sexuality without shying away or without making students shy away. And it should be noted that in order for the children to be not malicious regarding sex education, it must — like charity — begin at home. Teachers cannot build that foundation.

      • santos
        June 23, 2010 at 2:19 pm

        the primary source of values ought to tbe parent, not the schools and teachers. schools and teachers however are the primary source of education. so let’s allow teachers and schools teach sex education and let us not allow parents to abdicate teaching of values.

        • June 23, 2010 at 6:41 pm

          Parents are the primary teachers; school teachers are just secondary parents; therefore, school teachers are secondary teachers, especially about subjects that directly affect a person’s life and outlook. Sex education will always be a primary affair of the parents, not of school teachers. Teachers can share their knowledge with the parents, but they cannot be an actual parent when it comes to educating children about sex.

          • June 24, 2010 at 3:36 pm

            “therefore, school teachers are secondary teachers, especially about subjects that directly affect a person’s life and outlook. Sex education will always be a primary affair of the parents”

            You said it well, Wilberg. Did the memo say, impliedly or otherwise, Deped is taking the primary role of teaching sex education to children. Parent’s neglect, or lack of knowledge, will only make it so. But
            were parents taught proper sex ed in school?

            • June 25, 2010 at 5:18 pm

              I have not seen the full text of the memo so I could not say that it has implied or explicitly said in letters that it would take the role of the parents. However, the mere fact that both DepEd and DOH have the influence of contraceptive culture, and that this sex education aims to shape the students’ moral and practical view regarding the use of their sexual faculties, it actually tries to take away (or at least compete with) the role of the parents. The concept sounds so RH bill.

              • June 25, 2010 at 8:29 pm

                Well, there are more trees that the catholic church should bark upon that are more influential in shaping the students’ moral and practical view regarding the use of their sexual faculties, that they actually try to take away (or at least compete with) the role of the parents.

                We have noontume shows like Wowowee, movies depicting illicit sex, the MTV culture, immoral actors and actresses (how many of them go catholic church on sundays?) to name a few.

                Who are we to judge that sex education will lead to promiscuity? Do you have studies to prove this? On the contrary please read the editorial of the philippine daily inquirer today. It might just assuage your fear.

                • June 26, 2010 at 1:35 am

                  I don’t think the Church failed to teach the principles on how to discern the morality of movies and TV shows. Priests may or may not point out Revillame’s behavior, for example, but it’s up to them. Besides, what you deem moral (or immoral) applies to everything. Furthermore, TV shows and movies could not be more influential than teachers if the parents have “the authority” over their children. It is only in extreme situations that the Church should warn the faithful about particular shows. That is still the role of the guardians in ordinary circumstances.

                  And what does the question “How many of them go to Catholic churches on Sundays” imply? That they should not be allowed to? That they should be singled out on homilies? Any other else? When parents teach their children about honesty, it is very wrong and insensitive to say to one who is known to be dishonest, “Kaya ikaw, huwag kang sinungaling!” That scene is common but it is wrong parenting. You should not even say to your children, whether you have 2 or 12, the line, “Ang titigas ng ulo nyo!” It is an act of condemnation rather than of correction.

                  We do not judge, we discern. We do not speculate, we use principles. And as I have said earlier, DepEd is living and thinking in a culture of contraception and two-child mentality; that alone is enough to see where this is leading to.

                  Sex education is a very broad term. I used to talk about sex “on air”, and I am still giving insights about it to whoever solicits it from me. Sex education itself “should” not lead to promiscuity; however, wrong education might lead to wrong behavior.

                  Did sex education “really” help Americans to be less promiscuous? Read Humanae Vitae, then tell us where Paul VI failed to perceive our generation more than 40 years ago. Besides, why should the government insist on teaching sexuality beyond its [government’s] bounds? They should know the word respect better than that.

                • June 26, 2010 at 2:30 am

                  I am not sure why you have adopted my words, but if you want to imply that it is the Church who tries to take away or compete with the role of the parents, then you have a wrong proposition. First, religion is a personal choice; it is neither a curriculum nor a memorandum. Whatever the Church teaches, the faithful asks for it. The minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” And the answer is: “Faith.” (CCC Part 1, Sec 1, Chap 3). The baptised-to-be’s gesture professes that “Whatever the Church teaches, I believe.” Whether you are a parent or still a child, you actually asked your church (whether you are aware or not) to teach you according to its faith — that is religious belief, morality, and discipline.

                  Second, the State recognizes and shall defend “the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions” as per the Philippine Constitution. This just means that the State also recognizes religion has the primary influence in parenting and family life.

                  In short, the Church cannot compete with the parents because it is actually one of their influences. Now, it is not the case with DepEd, because whatever attacks a family’s religious belief is a violation of its religious and constitutional rights. And besides, what DepEd wants to do is already outside its boundary.

            • June 26, 2010 at 3:37 am

              “But were parents taught proper sex ed in school?”

              If the sex education that you are referring to is as what DepEd defines it to be, then parents should have not been taught. But the more real argument here is that not all parents went to school. The question is not generally applicable. It would have been better if the question is, “Were the parents taught proper sex education?” My answer then is, “They should be now.” The focus of the proposal should be on the word “proper” and not on the “school”.

              Now, the reality is: parents are parents. They have the responsibility to know what they should know. Whether they went to school or not, the fact that they are parents should push them to be responsible enough to study. Learning about life is not always done inside a campus; most of the time, it is outside. Whether poor or rich, parents should always be one step ahead of their children when it comes to life’s essentials. The Church may not reach everybody, but everybody may approach the Church and its Magisterium. Now, someone would say, “But the Church has a wrong perception about sex.” According to the world, yes; but according to the Creator of the world, the Church is “the Teacher”. Christ’s sending words are, “Therefore go and make disciples (i.e. students) of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Another one would say, “But not all Filipinos are Catholics.” Most Filipinos are Catholics and all Catholics must live according to their Faith; that means according to the teaching of the Church. Now, how about non-Catholics? Again, I would say, everybody may approach the Magisterium of the Church, whether someone wishes or not to be a Catholic. That is a “free education” offer. And if non-Catholics want to stick with the moral teaching of their churches, then good for them. But to argue that not all Filipinos are Catholics just to justify the presence of “sex education” in schools is lame. DepEd still violates rights.

  4. June 24, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    There’s The Rub
    The education, not the sex

    By Conrado de Quiros
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    Posted: 06/23/2010

    I REMEMBER HOW IT WAS IN OUR ELEMENtary school. During recess, we would rush off downstairs to the row of toilets at the back of the school and relieve ourselves while looking at the scrawling and drawings on the wall in front of us. The scrawling consisted of the usual profanities, many of them sexual in nature, while the drawings were predominantly that of the male organ depicted to an exaggerated length and volume in a state of agitation (at least as compared to our endowments), and on occasion the same organ buried in a hole. The drawings were crude, lacking anatomical detail and precision, particularly of the hole, which could be attributed to the artist’s lack of visual aid, or experience, with the subject.

    A group of us would often congregate around the area to talk about adventurous things that we would rather not discuss within hearing distance of the other kids, who might report us, or a passing teacher. The kids from the higher grades would normally be holding court, and their talk would consist of apprising us, shocked but fascinated, about the specific things they proposed to do, should the opportunity present itself, to the more attractive female teachers in school to deliver them to the garden of earthly delights. The specific things were crude as well, which might be attributed to the proposers’ lack of knowledge of the positions depicted in a famous Indian classic.

    By the time we went back to class, many of us would be in a state of, well, agitation.

    I remembered this in light of the protests against the Department of Education’s plan to teach sex education as a separate subject to the kids. I’m dismayed that my favorite political party, Kapatiran, should be leading the charge.

    Says their lawyer, Jo Imbong: “Are they, especially the grade schoolers, already generally indulging in sex and are promiscuous enough as to warrant HIV/AIDS protection or the use of condoms, IUDs and contraceptive pills? DepEd Memo 261 is unreasonable and arbitrary unless DepEd is candid enough to admit that its real agenda is to transform the sex behavior of our kids towards being sex-obsessed.” And says Kapatiran head Eric Manalang: “Sex education in schools is not the answer. It promotes promiscuity among children… it does not promote the proper values that we want our children to receive in schools and we believe sex education should strictly remain a family affair.”

    Surely neither Imbong nor Manalang is too old to remember how it was in their elementary grades? I cannot imagine that we were any more promiscuous than the rest of the boys—and girls—our age in this country at the time we indulged in the, well, pastimes I narrated above. We were a parochial school, called so not because it was narrow-minded (though an argument could be made for the case, as for other Katoliko sarado institutions) but because it was the parish school. We were all boys, the Church belief at the time being that co-education sprang from the mind of the devil, offering temptations not unlike the one the Devil did to Adam and Eve, which drove them out of Eden. That has long since been debunked.

    Of course grade schoolers are not generally indulging in sex, but they are generally indulging in talk about sex. They are not generally filled with raging dalliances, but they are generally filled with raging hormones. You are that age and studying in a Catholic school, you cannot imagine why the worst cardinal sin is pride and not lust. It is only when you get a little older that you see the wisdom of that assessment. Lust only screws up a few people, pride screws up a nation.

    Sex education is not going to plant the seeds of sexual proclivity in kids, or fan it, it is going to, well, educate it. That proclivity is there, in the biology, fanned every time the kids open the TV, surf the Internet (how can parents who know less about computers than their kids possibly hope to regulate it?), or merely go out in the streets and behold delectable humanity. Unless you mean to lock up your kid, prevent him from switching on the TV or computer, you can’t turn him into a self-denying flagellant. Which will just make him a creep.

    Who would you rather the kids turn to to know about the birds and the bees?

    The part about making sex education a strictly family affair is astonishing. At the very least that’s so because how many mothers and fathers in this country go on to tell their kids that they were not actually dropped by the stork (or whatever local myth there is) but came from the father inserting his stick into the mother’s hole and squirting a liquid into her that became what he, or she, is? In this country where sex is regarded as taboo, if not in fact a sin (I don’t know that the notion, “Sin, thy name is Woman,” isn’t still embraced) how many of the objectors to sex education can actually claim they learned all there is to know about the subject, and then some, from their mothers and fathers?

    At the very most that’s so because it makes out the typical Filipino family as 1950s middle-class Americana. The kind where the father comes home from work every day in early evening, and says “Honey, I’m home,” assuming the wife doesn’t work herself but spends time baking in the oven, and proceeds to spend time with the kids imparting wisdom in the ways of life. In fact, the typical Filipino family is one where both parents are out all day doing backbreaking work, in urban areas steaming in sweatshops, driving buses and jeepneys, selling wares in sidewalks, thieving and whoring, while the kids scavenge the mountains of trash. You want sex education in those conditions to be a strictly family affair?

    The point of sex education is the education, not the sex.

  5. Marie
    June 29, 2010 at 2:19 am

    For a country like the Philippines where the sex industry brings in millions of pesos (if not dollars) to the country, why all the talk about sex education in schools. Compare the culture of the US regarding sex versus the sex education in Europe. In the US, there are millions of teen pregnancies who end up having more than 2 kids by the time they are twenty with no education.

    In Europe, you hardly hear about rape unlike in the US, or the Philippines. It’s a waste of time arguing and having conversations about teaching sex education in a country that is controlled by “stupid” politicians who thinks they are “holier than though”. Let’s not be hypocrites as we all know even nurses that work in the Middle East moonlights as “escort and/or a little prostituting” so they can earn extra money to send to the Philippines. Besides in SouthEast Asia, child prostitution is so common that even parents prostitute their kids and/or act as “pimps” for a few hundreds.

    The social cancer in the Philippines has been there for decades since Rizal wrote the Noli. It has not changed since the 1880’s. Why would we think it will change in the next six years with Noy, or, in the future? Don’t judge us who seems to be pessimistic about the future of the Philippines. We have also been to hell and back — in a foreign land, most times exploited by our own people (Filipinos).

    To the person who owns this blog, thank you for your participation in allowing all of us to speak up and write our thoughts and honest opinion(s). It’s a breath of fresh air coming from the Philippines.

    To all the guests and visitors, before you write something, I request that you do your own research (not relying on newspapers or someone’s opinion) but YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE, for a person does not have the right to blame, judge, point a finger to, or say anything UNLESS HE/SHE HAS EXPERIENCED THEIR “OWN REALITY” in life whether it be in the Philippines, or, a foreign land among their fellow countrymen.

  6. June 29, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Well, as the Scientific studies cited by the PDI editorial, sex education does not lead to promiscuity. In fact, more revealing is the fact that proves the opposite argument. That should settle it. Unless other scientific studies disproves these findings.

    Bottom line is: Let the DepEd teach the children about penis and vagina and what happens if the former is inserted to the latter; Let the Catholic Church moralize about why should the penis be inserted into the vagina only in the context of marriage.

    • June 29, 2010 at 5:26 pm

      PDI’s data cannot reconcile itself with America’s observable evidence regarding relation between sex education and promiscuity. It is not worth our taxpayers’ money. DepEd’s Memo 261 is an implementation of the International Conference on Population Development Programme of Action, which is in no way Filipino. And who are behind the reproductive health and sex education in the Philippines and in almost all countries? The Planned Parenthood Federation of America who had received $350 million dollars which they use to kill babies all around the world. This federation explicitly promotes homosexuality and pornography. UN’s, America’s, and PPFA’s, and the anti-life culture’s influence are almost impossible to resist, and it is very evident on how we accept it. It is everywhere especially in national and international policies and in the field of education. Here are some words from PPF: “If your parents are stupid enough to deny you access to birth control, and you are under 18, you can get it on your own. Call Planned Parenthood,” “Prostitutes don’t need our condescension. What they need is our alliance. And we need theirs,” “If you feel sexy, for heaven’s sake admit it to yourself. If the feeling and the tension bother you, you can masturbate. Masturbation cannot hurt you and it will make you feel more relaxed,” “At Planned Parenthood you can also get birth control without the consent or knowledge of your parents. So, if you are 14, 15 or 16 and you come to Planned Parenthood, we won’t tell your parents you’ve been there. We swear we won’t tell your parents.” Is it surprising then how promiscuous America is?

  7. June 29, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    The study was not confined to America. Was it? Again, the issue of morality is the domain, and, therefore, the responsibility of the church. If the youth (in this predominantly catholic nation) of today have loose morals then certainly DepEd is not to blame. There is no morality (good or evil) issue of teaching what happens if a penis is inserted into the vagina. As to when it should be inserted, that is the morality issue which is the responsibility of the catholic church, or any church for that matter.

    • June 30, 2010 at 2:05 pm

      The arguments are still out of the points. Sex educations in almost all countries, including and especially the Philippines, are results of international pressure that even for a country’s president or group of presidents will be almost impossible to resist. And this sex education will be against the values of the Filipinos and even of Christians, regardless of nationality. It is really the responsibility of the Church to shape consciences, but it is also its mission to defend the truth; that is to speak up and to raise its voice against actions, activities, policies, proposals, and plans that violate the truth and the right of human beings.

      Philippines’ sex education will not be in the context of Christian and Filipino values or else it would violate the mandates of ICPD. UN’s sex education will always be in contrast with the Church’s teachings; therefore, sex education in the context of ICPD will always violate Christians.

      For everybody’s information, PPFA, which I have already mentioned above, is present in the Philippines since 1971 through its partner organizations, and has already influenced the whole country without the Filipinos being aware of it. Our morality and culture are almost already American — that is the immoral side of America, and yet we think that we are still Filipinos and that nobody has fooled us or at least influenced us.

      It would be very easy to say, “Let us be one and raise our voice against whatever is wrong with DepEd’s sex education, then let us settle with what the majority (or the Church and the parents) agreed upon. But again, I will say, sex education is not about Filipino education, it is about the agenda of UN and of US, although they themselves do not trust each other.

      The implication that DepEd’s sex education is amoral or has nothing to do with good or evil is not accurate. The memo itself says that the project “aims to enhance the over-all wellness of the Filipino adolescents i.e. the physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual development.” It covers everything naturally, that is because sexuality covers everything in a human being’s life. Academic subjects like health and science cover anatomy and physiology, but it cannot and should not by itself teach morality. DepEd’s sex education would like to attempt something that it should not.

      If DepEd’s sex education is simply about how a penis and a vagina work together to create another individual, it would not take six long years for a normal student to understand that. I do not think they have plans to teach elementary and high school students about gonadotropins or what hormones or receptors are responsible for the whole process of human reproduction. For sure they do not want them to be sexologists or OBGyne’s after graduation. The Education Secretary, to defend the memo, said that “sex education will be taught in social studies topics under Heograpiya, Kasaysayan, at Sibika such as the position of religion on pre-marital sex and the norms when people of opposite sex interact. In Mathematics, students will use data on issues like pre-marital sex, teen age pregnancy, and sexually transmitted infections in their mathematical analysis and exercises in statistics.” Is it not being SPO (sexually preoccupied)? Sex in the morning, sex in the afternoon, and sex in the evening; doesn’t it sound like that?

      If we will just look around and see what is happening in our country and in other countries with regards to policies about education, health, and reproductive health, we will see where every country is common. They have just one source. The wordings and the reasoning are almost duplicates. That is because this is an international conspiracy where, ironically, the only conspirators are the wealthiest governments. The leaders of the developing countries think that they are one with them, not realizing that they are actually one with theirs; they are ignorant instruments of the true conspirators. And what are the real agenda? Genetics, depopulation, and one world government that will start with national absolute government. HB 5043 have it all, by the way.

      Parents cannot just say, “Hey, DepEd, we do not want you to teach our children about this or that; take this part off from the module.” You can take away everything you want, but if ICPD requires it to be there, it will remain or the whole thing will just be discarded.

  8. July 1, 2010 at 8:37 am

    When one’s views are tainted by conspiracy theories no amount of argument will be able to change your mind.

    But isn’t a one world government one of the agenda of the catholic church also?

    Well, we are getting ahead, aren’t we? Let us just focus on the morality issue; the one posited by wawam. Let me simplify it this way: Will (or what is the chance of) a school child, born of a devout catholic family, become(ing) promiscuous after being taught sex education by the Deped?

    • July 1, 2010 at 4:02 pm

      Conspiracy theories usually cannot be proven by ordinary means, but the agenda of eugenicists, depopulation advocates, and global policy makers are not just theories, they are very public. Does not need to be gnostic or someone who knows something that is very intimate.

      I thought of sharing some links that will help the enquirer to be informed, but when I realized that it is “too overwhelming”, I decided that I will just stick with the connection between the government’s projects on education and on policies and the eventual promiscuity. Take note of the word “eventual”.

      The following explanation might help…and suffice:

    • July 1, 2010 at 4:07 pm

      Bonus package:


  1. June 27, 2010 at 9:14 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: