WE SUSPECT that the advocates of a more liberal approach to the teaching of sex education in Jamaica, as reported elsewhere in today's edition, have not thought through the ramifications or practical implementation of their proposal. Or perhaps they have, and this is the thin edge of the wedge.Traditionally, sex education in local schools has centred on the human reproductive system, some social aspects of family life and the encouragement of delayed sexual activity to prevent pregnancy among teenagers.
This education has often encompassed not just the biological development and functions of the body but also the social and moral implications that are associated with the expression of human sexuality. So at the core of the education programmes is the reinforcing of certain cultural values as to what constitutes appropriate and responsible behaviour as far as sex goes.
It is difficult then to fathom what would be taught in Jamaican schools about gay relationships that would advance the cause of groups such as J-FLAG, a group representing gays and lesbians.
What would this new curriculum entail? An endorsement of lifestyles that a substantial, we dare say, overwhelming majority of Jamaicans, find not only aberrant but immoral?
Any new liberal approach to education will either have to be done after considerable lobbying and winning over of opponents or state policy decision to ignore the views of the majority.
Could the proposals for a new thrust in education be embraced by school administrations, many of which were founded by church denominations whose teachings are clearly opposed to homosexual relationships? We think not.
We recognise that this aggressive push towards a more liberal approach in matters to do with human sexuality has gained some successes overseas.
For example, for more than a decade, United Kingdom legislators have been making incremental changes in public policy resulting in the repeal of a law which said inter alia that a local authority was no longer permitted to "promote the teaching in any school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."
In other words, schools should not "discriminate" in their sex education classes to portray homosexual relationships as "unaccepted". Parents, however, have the option of withdrawing their children from any school programme dealing with that subject matter to which they object.
Of note, too, The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill came into effect on January 8, 2001, reducing the age of sexual consent for gay men from 18 to 16 in England, Wales and Scotland. In Northern Ireland, the age of consent for gay men was brought into line with the heterosexual age of consent at 17. Would this be the next issue in Jamaica whose laws do not allow for male/male unions at all?
Underpinning the advocacy for a more liberal approach are concerns about HIV/AIDS and the impact on the wider society as well as some of the violence that accompanies the venting of disapproval of particular lifestyles. We contend that tolerance for people who may have a different perspective from the majority should not necessarily mean the state's embrace of that lifestyle through public policy.
Any push for schools to teach homosexual relationships as normal will likely be stoutly resisted as much by the religious community as by the more secular-minded. We remain unconvinced of the practicality of the proposal.
