Why Parents?

A question has been raised about parental rights in Alberta. 

I suppose it seems self evident that children should be under the authority of their parents. This would be necessary to have a society that can raise a wise, competent, moral generation to follow them. When questioned, I had to think about this for about 5 minutes before I was even able to formulate a response. It's such a basic (foundational) thing that we take it generally for granted.

First, some questions. Are children under their parents authority or their own? Are they actually autonomous, and parental authority is a kind of totalitarianism, imposed on them from birth? Or is it the schools that are in authority? Parents, governments or children - one of them is in charge.

The problem is that this position is spun as inclusive and compassionate, but I believe it is just the opposite. A child that is under his or her own authority is an orphan. A child that is under the authority of the government/school is, well, ummm... a communist youth?

So for a child's well being, they have been given parents - people who are their own flesh and blood, who have a bond and responsibility to raise them. (And may I add - this is why marriage, marred as it is, is so important for kids. Marriage creates the safety in which they can flourish - it provides what they need from both a mother and a father, two ingredients that prove statistically massive in predicting their success in life. Not a single mom, not a single dad, not two moms or two dads can ever replace a biological mother and father, bound in marriage for the good of each other and kids.)
This is the reason children absolutely do NOT have a right to privacy. Not because we want to deprive them, but because in giving them autonomy without giving them character we ARE depriving them. Many kids are suffering from just this sort of deprivation - the lack of parental involvement, which may explain why many parents aren't that bothered by this whole thing.

Parents should involved constantly with their kids daily lives - indeed, you cannot have responsibility over something or someone without knowing the most important details, and having a say. A parent is responsible and in authority because a parent is wiser than a child. Kids generally disagree at various points, every day, with this fact. And increasingly so as they get to be 12, 14, or 16. But at these crucial ages kids need parental involvement as much as ever. They need their parent to wisely tell them no (or yes) when every other kid's parent is saying yes (or saying nothing). No, you can't go to a keg party without adults present. No, you can't call in to work just cause you're tired. No, you can't watch Netflix downstairs alone with your girlfriend with the lights off. Yes, you must finish your homework before going out with your friends. I don't think I'm saying anything explosive here.

But if parents are needed for these basic things, how much more do they need them for the subtleties of navigating their sexuality! In saying this, I do not mean that all parents are involved in the right ways, or anything like that. It would seem most parents have become altogether shy about their involvement as the kids grow into teen years, and it is to the children's harm and sadness.

But this doesn't negate the point - parents should be the primary instructors of their children in all areas, including sexuality. Once again, if this is not true, then some other person or party will be. It will be the child, the government, or the internet.

What about homes that discourage their children from identifying as homosexual or transgender? Shouldn't the schools help the kids hide their true identity from their parents? No, they should not. This is once again, to usurp authority that is not theirs to take. It also assumes a particular view of sexuality - namely, that homosexual or transgender "identities" should be encouraged or accepted, not treated or corrected. I am not making any claims about that here at all - I am only pointing out that the common view assumes the right and proper nature of these "identities" - that they should be accepted and not corrected. And this is one of my main concerns - the government should not be forcing a particular view of these issues onto it's population. This is exactly what is happening here, when the government essentially claims to know better than a huge swathe of it's population. Do I disagree with the common sentiment? Of course I do. But even if you don't, we should both agree that these guidelines are a major step in the wrong direction.