Is there something I'm missing that clarifies that the comment was made in a homophobic manner, rather than typical, expected political hyperbole?
Reading the curriculum, there is little in there that wasn't there, when I took Sex Ed back when Bill Davis was Premier. They certainly mentioned masturbation during the 1970s (I remember, as recall being surprised that my little secret was not actually a secret, after whatever mandatory 1950s Sex Ed film was shown
)
So what's changed? Discussion of social media. No one seems to think that is a bad thing.
And mentions that homosexuality exists (back in the 1970s, we found out by watching Billy Crystal on Soap). I really don't know how you avoid it in school these days ... I'm aware of a couple of same-sex parents in my daughter's grade one class ... and I've hardly been counting.
So it's hard to see how opposing this curriculum isn't anything except homophobia.
Patrick Brown has certainly made it clear in the past that he is homophobic. Not sure if McNaughton has or not ... but I haven't bothered to check.
Given how similar the new curriculum is to the old curriculum, and to the curriculum of the Big Blue machine, I don't see how any Conservative politician could oppose it, without raising some huge questions.
I'm relieved that Eilliot has the morals to not turn this into an wedge issue. Though I think the Conservatives would do better in 2018 under Elliot, than under Brown if he were to make this an issue.
I doubt Brown has much of a chance. He might have got a lot of people to sign up to the party, however his support was mostly in a few ridings, and the leadership vote is normalized so that each riding has equal weighting in.
Interesting that we'll have 3 female leaders in the next election. I wonder if that will change the tone any.