Wednesday, December 07, 2016


Recently, the Department of Health officially announced that it stood ready and prepared to bring formal sexual amorality to no less than the school children all over the Country.  It came out with the rather proud and well-publicized option of distributing condoms to the students supposedly to prevent them from having venereal disease – without even qualifying who concretely are its target among the K to 12 student body.  In more down-to-earth language, while the Department of Education makes the resolve to teach the students how to engage in “Safe Sex”, the Department of Health in turn provides the condoms for the use of the students.

And the parents?  No.  The sexual life of their own children is none of their business.  Yes.  They should give their children food, shelter and clothing.  No.  Teaching them not only the basic nature, the intrinsic significance and inherent finality of sex – belongs to the Department of Health in cahoots with the Department of Education.  Yes.  Parents are irrelevant as to what is morally good or vicious about sex as far as their own children are concerned.  All these – to say the least – are downright falsehood and incarnate amorality.

It is not how to educate the school children on the  sacredness – dignity, nobility, sanctity – of human sexuality.  It is neither about the virtue or vice brought about by sexual ventures, options and pursuant actions.  To say it bluntly, the Department of Health hand-in-hand with the Department of Education are de facto claiming the prerogative of teaching school children  not really about the ethical nature and moral dimension  but on how to indulge in sexual relations – without a girl getting sick, much less getting pregnant.  If this is not ultimately Population Control, then what is it?

Who told the Department of Health that the distribution of condoms is the right and proper answer to prevent/eradicate sexual diseases?  And who told the Department of Education that sexual education - specially in terms of its virtuous or vicious implications, moral and immoral consequences – do not rightfully belong to the parents or elders of the students?  Who says that the parents are not the ones who have both the right and the obligation to give the right and proper sex education to their own children?  Who thinks that the teachers instead should teach and advise the parents about the needed and proper sex education of their own children – even but considering the basic finalities of duly established “Parent-Teacher Associations” existing  practically all over the Country?

It is not enough that the Country is markedly divided and that a big number of people therein are markedly poor.  It is neither enough that criminality thrives in all regions and illegal drugs are all over the place.  Is it even necessary for the government – through the above cited two Departments – to promote sexual immorality and irresponsibility?  Is it in right order that human sexuality is divested of morals and sexual vice is in effect promoted even from childhood?  Wherefore:  Is it about Children having sex?  Why not?  There are condoms all around and sex is thus “safe”.  Sex between boys and girls?  Why not?  Condoms are readily available – from the right sources for the right prices with right profits distributed among their importers.  The maxim “Free Condoms” is a deception.  There are condom manufacturers, importers, distributor – for the right prices and with the right profits.  There is nothing profound about this reality.