Wednesday, January 04, 2006

A Question. I Mean, Really

Hey, I have a question. Anybody know the answer here, or how to find out?

The "ex-gay" thing is going to be an issue as MCPS discusses a new curriculum. Some people are going to insist that the schools need to teach that you can stop being gay. They will say that there are thousands -- no, tens of thousands -- of people who have gone from being gay to being straight.

OK, so here's my question. How many people have gone from being straight to being gay?

We have seen a few news stories over the years. Some guy has a family, kids that prove he was, y'know, sexually active with his wife. And then he is identified looking for man-love on the Internet, or coming out of a gay bar, or some guy tells a reporter about their torrid affair.

It's a fairly common kind of story, and I have the idea there are a lot more of these than ones that go the other way, guys stopping being gay. But how many? Does anybody have any idea?

And ... does this straight-to-gay transition lend support to the "ex-gay" perspective, or undermine it? Does this mean that "change is possible," or were these guys gay to start with?

The underlying question, I guess, is -- if they teach about "ex-gays," shouldn't the schools teach about "ex-straights," too?

214 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

True conversion from gay to straight is virtually non-existant. Nicolosi, Executive Director of NARTH, uses the term "non-gay homosexual"; that is what "ex-gay" really means: a homosexual who doesn't "behave" like one, but still has same-sex attractions.

Introducing "ex-gays" to the curriculum will only lead to debate and confusion. If you want to be fair, you'll have to consider "ex-ex-gays" and all the stories that are attached with both terms (this includes all the types of therapies and the organisations that provide such therapies). There will have to be objective critical analysis of absolutely everything in order for there to be no bias. While we're at it, make sure to include everything over at queerbychoice.com (some of your "ex-straights") and analyse everything there too just to be fair.

Honestly now, you can't include anything like that in a curriculum; every "fact" would be based on anecdotal evidence. You can quote studies left and right (including the infamous Spitzer study), but if you were to really consider everything (which is only fair), you'll need to dedicate months and months of lessons just to provide the information. After that you'll need to start analysing all the material for flaws. Also don't forget new stories pop up all the time so it'll become an on-going thing.

Anyway, how much of above is suitable for a sex-ed curriculum? I'd say good luck even trying to get your head round all of it, let alone teach it to teenagers (in addition to all the real sex education).

January 04, 2006 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The previous post illustrates why the original revised curriculum simply set forth basic facts as understood by the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations. Any mention of reparative therapy approaches -- not included in the original revised curriculum -- would have to include the statements of the American Medical Association, et al., condemning those approaches. My view is that since the discussion of sexual orientation is only a small part of the semester-long health education curriculum, it is not useful to get into that discussion in health classes, any more than it would be useful to have discussion of "Intelligent Design" in biology classes.

At bottom, virtually all (and perhaps all) proponents of reparative therapies base their arguments on their theological beliefs. Their "scientific" arguments are no more scientific than those presented by the Intelligent Design proponents, whose psuedo-scientific arguments were shredded in the Dover decision.

Theological disputation does not belong in health classes, which, as Ron Reagan, Jr., observed when interviewing Jim Kennedy and Peter Sprigg last year, are essentially science classes.

January 04, 2006 11:32 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

PFOX and groups like them consider a gay guy that is either celibate or who marries a woman to have become "ex-gay," right?

So has anybody ever collected any data on the number of men who, in their adolescence or early adulthood, dated or married women, and then switched to a homosexual orientation? It certainly seems relevant to the question that we know is going to come up.

The fact is, PFOX has a member on the MCPS citizens advisory committee. The whole reason he's there is to pressure the district to include teachings about "ex-gays."

It's going to come up.

JimK

January 04, 2006 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim

An obituary in the Post in the past week was for a psychiatrist who disagreed with the 1973 APA decision, saying it was done for political/social reasons. Sounds like the same thing Cilly quoted a psychiatrist saying a couple of months ago. Anyway, this guy treated homosexuals and claimed a one-third success rate. Sounds like a good place to start if your inquiry is sincere and you have an open mind.

January 04, 2006 5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The underlying question, I guess, is -- if they teach about "ex-gays," shouldn't the schools teach about "ex-straights," too?"

Why can't the schools teach the truth and say they don't know if sexual orientation is chosen and irresistable? The problem is that certain people have decided that having everyone endorse your sexual impulses is a civil right and they want to bolster their case by asserting that homosexuality has no element of choice. There is no support for this assertion.

January 04, 2006 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did it ever occur to you that anybody has the capacity to either "sexual orientation"? That everyone is in some sense "bi"? That the whole thing is not a "orientation" but a preference? It's the most logical explanation for the stuff you're talking about?

January 04, 2006 7:16 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon

If you'd attended our forum you'd have seen some of this research. Of course anyone can, with a little friction and a little imagination, have "sex" with anyone or with any of various inanimate objects or, even, animals. Some people, especially some women, don't really have a strong preference in terms of the sex of their partner, but just want it to be somebody they like or feel aroused by. Not many guys feel that way, and I don't think it's all cultural taboo, either. But it is hard to find research that shows real bisexual men. Guys tend to be attracted to one or the other sex.

So the problem with your idea that it's just a preference, even though it would be "logical," as you say, is that ... not many people really feel that way, at least not male people. When you hit puberty or thereabout, some people in the environment get your attention, and some don't. Very few people report making a choice in the matter. I know I didn't, when I got to a certain age I just knew what I liked, and the other option never even occurred to me. I read where Jerry Falwell was saying he felt the same way, no choice in the matter.

JimK

January 04, 2006 7:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So the problem with your idea that it's just a preference, even though it would be "logical," as you say, is that ... So the problem with your idea that it's just a preference, even though it would be "logical," as you say, is that ... not many people really feel that way, at least not male people. , at least not male people."

Jim, show some consistency. You just said in your post that it's "fairly common" and now you're saying "... not many people really feel that way, at least not male people." I said it was the logical conclusion of the information you were posting. Are you saying it's common or not for someone straight to become gay?

January 04, 2006 7:55 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous said...
Jim

An obituary in the Post in the past week was for a psychiatrist who disagreed with the 1973 APA decision, saying it was done for political/social reasons. Sounds like the same thing Cilly quoted a psychiatrist saying a couple of months ago. Anyway, this guy treated homosexuals and claimed a one-third success rate. Sounds like a good place to start if your inquiry is sincere and you have an open mind.

********************

December 28, 2005

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/12/socarides_dies_1.html#more


Socarides Dies: A Grandfather of Reparative Therapy


Charles W. Socarides, a grandfather of the reparative therapy movement and co-founder of the antigay National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, died Dec. 25 in New York. He was 83 years old.


According to the New York Times, Socarides' books included "The Overt Homosexual" (Grune & Stratton, 1968) and "Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far -- A Psychoanalyst Answers 1,000 Questions About Causes and Cure and the Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society" (Adam Margrave Books, 1995). He helped form NARTH in 1992. According to a 1999 Human Rights Campaign brochure (see footnote 8), Socarides misrepresented the American Psychoanalytic Association's position on homosexuality in a published paper and court affidavit:

Charles Socarides has also run into trouble with the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), of which he is a member. According to a letter from Dr. Ralph Roughton of the APsaA, Socarides misrepresented the position of the APsaA in a published paper and a court affidavit. Socarides attempted to make it appear that the APsaA agrees with his positions on homosexuality. He did this by quoting an APsaA document written in 1968, which supported his views and which he called the "official position" of the APsaA, while ignoring a 1990 revised statement that drastically contradicted his views. The Executive Committee of the APsaA instructed the organization's attorney to write a letter to Socarides asking him to cease this misrepresentation and threatening legal action if he continued. Additionally, the APsaA newsletter decided to stop printing advertisements for NARTH meetings because the organization does not adhere to APsaA's policy of non-discrimination "and because their activities are demeaning to our members who are gay and lesbian," according to Roughton.
Socarides blamed homosexuality on the Freudian notion of absent fathers and attentive mothers. But he was a less than exemplary role model for fathers and for monogamous marriage; he was married four times, and his son Richard is an openly gay senior executive at New Line Cinema and former Clinton administration liaison on gay and lesbian issues.

The elder Socarides claimed to have helped 35 percent of his patients "become heterosexual" and to have helped additional gay patients reduce their sexual impulses. The Times does not explain or document Socarides' claim.

From the Times:

"Socarides outlived his time," Gilbert Herdt, an anthropologist who is the director of the National Sexuality Resource Center in San Francisco, said in a telephone interview yesterday. "He became a kind of anachronism, and a tragic one in the sense that he continued to inflict suffering on the lives of some gay and lesbian individuals and the L.G.B.T. community in general."
Of the relationship between Socarides and his gay son, the Times said:

In an interview yesterday, Richard Socarides said that he and his father managed to sustain a relationship, in part because both men refrained from discussing their work. "It was complex," he said. "We tried to relate to each other as father and son."

January 04, 2006 9:10 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, part of what I said is that people can have "sex" with ... nonoptimal partners. We have recently had a mayor in Spokane Washington, and I think a governor somewhere, maybe New Jersey, who, after years of marriage, were more or less outed practicing homosexuality.

I'm not sure a guy would throw away a marriage and a career on something that was just a preference. I have no doubt that people can have sex, even occasionally pleasurable sex, with a wide range of "partners," including their own hands, but everybody seems to agree that we have a tendency one way or the other, at least us guys.

Now, I don't find it impossible that some guys like both men and women, and just choose what's handy or what society approves of, though science has not found this to be a common experience. As you say, it's "logical," but it doesn't happen very often. It sounds like you might feel that way, I never did.

JimK

January 04, 2006 9:28 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Like, here, what do you make of this?

Baptist leader accused of soliciting male prostitute.

How come you never hear it the other way? Where are the thousands of, I mean tens of thousands of gay guys that are going straight?

These straight-to-gay guys seem like they're everywhere. Gay-to-straight, you never can find.

I'd like to see those numbers.

Jim

January 04, 2006 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa

In the context of this discussion, I think it falls under the "fair use" doctrine. Am I right, David?

January 04, 2006 9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How come you never hear it the other way? Where are the thousands of, I mean tens of thousands of gay guys that are going straight?"

Maybe because when it happens, no one considers it a scandal.

January 04, 2006 10:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the gay advocacy spin, Kay. Try reading the guy's books.

January 04, 2006 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa,

I am very sure that the kind of quoting you want to do falls under the "fair use" rule. To be sure you are being fair to the authors and publisher, I think you could list the title, publisher and primary author ("Green Eggs and Cholesterol: Dietary Guidelines for Preschoolers," Random Hut, T Diesel, et al.) in your first post, then you can just refer folks back to that post if they ask about your source. Frankly, I don't think you have to go quite that far, but it would provide almost the level of attribution required in any academic citaion.

I appreciate your concern for copyright and credit; we are so often able to bypass this step by just providing a link to the on-line source. This is especially easy with so many newspapers now publishing web editions.

What grade is this textbook written for? (she asked ungrammatically)

January 05, 2006 12:06 AM  
Blogger andrea said...

I am sure if there were many,many gay guys going straight- Knight, Spriggs and crew would have them on billboards, TV and the net.

January 05, 2006 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa wrote:
"Anyone know what the rules are on quoting ?"

I am sure that Tish is correct. Just quoting a paragraph from an entire textbook is certainly within the "fair use" rule. When you post the paragraph, could you please include the name of the author, the publisher, and the year of publication?

January 05, 2006 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Thanks for the gay advocacy spin, Kay. Try reading the guy's books.


_____________

No thanks... we will rely on you to quote from them in your "anti gay advocacy" spin.

January 05, 2006 1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Of course, he provided no scientific way to test this, so like virutally all Freudian contributions, fundamentally the idea is useless."

Dana, the AMA and APA have provided no scientific way to test their assertions and you don't seem bothered. I only brought this up because Jim was again feigning ignorance about converted gays and this guy claimed many cases where he provided effective therapy.

Why do you feel so threatened by the idea of environmental influences? You can still push your misguided civil rights ideas. Science hasn't provided any evidence that orientation is biologically determined.

January 05, 2006 7:24 PM  
Blogger andrea said...

This guy claimed he "cured" gay people so it is true-but the AMA and APS are political so their stance is false. Who's got the spin here, Anon?

January 05, 2006 7:29 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?"

JimK

January 06, 2006 7:32 AM  
Blogger Christine said...

The Catholic school health education book says, "And con¬doms provide virtually no protection against some of the most common STDs like human papillomavirus and chlamydia."

This statement is inaccurate according to the CDC. Here's what the CDC, under the George W. Bush administration, says about condoms, HPV, and chlamydia.

"While the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease."
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

"Latex male condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of transmission of chlamydia."
http://www.cdc.gov/std/chlamydia/STDFact-Chlamydia.htm

Christine

January 06, 2006 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?""

sexual activity between two or more members of the same gender

January 06, 2006 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The reason the APA dropped homosexuality from the DSM was because of that history of failure."

I hope this is just a faux pas on your part, Dana. DSM should list disorders not just treatable disorders. The truth is modern psychiatry has not had much success treating many mental disorders.

January 06, 2006 8:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"recognized that classifying a normal human sexual behavior, let alone a form of innate sexual desire, as a disease was wrong."

Dana

Do you feel all sexual desires are innate or only gender preferences? What I mean is, if say a person is attracted to animals or chains, is that innate or would it be acquired?

January 06, 2006 9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They give us something with which to work in a calm and rational manner (so far)."

Dana,

I think you'd have this experience a lot more if you'd encourage the TTF President to stop calling people names. Is that all part of the GLAAD strategic plan for your organization?

January 06, 2006 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said...

"More pretty frightening stuff. I can see why Ruth was more horrified than the rest of us by the video now."

In referring to "Dr. Ruth" this is an understatement. "Dr. Ruth" came off as a nut trying her best to get on new CAC.


I mean swirlies and all.......

January 06, 2006 9:38 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

I asked, Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?"

And Anon "answered," sexual activity between two or more members of the same gender

OK, so somebody help me out here. That answer of course is not clear at all. Let me list some things, you tell me if they are "homosexual behavior" or not, OK? (Here I am just referring to males, I'm afraid the lesbian thing is going to be even harder to pin down.) I think we'll agree that a guy putting his penis in the anus or mouth of another man is "homosexual behavior" on both people's part.

How about this: walking down the street holding hands with a guy? Homosexual behavior, or not? How about open-mouth kissing another guy? Does that count? How about flouncing through the grocery store in a fuschia gauze blouse tied at the waist, with teal harem pants and a saffron sash? Homosexual behavior? How about a guy wiggling his butt when he knows another guy is walking behind him? How about smiling and winking at a stranger who seems gay, and starting a conversation with them? How about putting on a wig and eye makeup and lip-synching to Barbra Streisand songs in front of the mirror? What about wearing silk hose and a garter belt under your business suit, and giggling to yourself all day because nobody knows? Is that acceptable, or is that "homosexual behavior?"

How about curling up on the sofa with your best friend, cuddling and eating popcorn and stroking one another's half-naked bodies while you watch old musicals on TV? Homosexual behavior? (It doesn't seem to be, by Anon's definition.)

Or do you only mean behaviors that result in ejaculation of semen into the mouth or anus of another person of the same sex? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but it doesn't really seem like that's the issue.

JimK

January 06, 2006 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those CDC Fact Sheets haven't been updated since May 2004.

Another result of all those tax cuts apparently.

January 06, 2006 9:45 AM  
Blogger andrea said...

Theresa,
Thank you for providing us with this information. It is good to hear from rational - if different- viewpoints and certainly to be able to read what is in other texts and what other kids are learning.

I have to tell you though- when you ended one message- you said I have to send this to Dr. Ruth- and I was shocked. I was thinking of Ruth Westheimer as she was a part of the focus of a TV show about the 80's last week-I gather you meant Ruth Jacobs. But you had me going for a bit!

January 06, 2006 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I asked, Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?"

And Anon "answered," sexual activity between two or more members of the same gender

OK, so somebody help me out here. That answer of course is not clear at all. Let me list some things, you tell me if they are "homosexual behavior" or not, OK? (Here I am just referring to males, I'm afraid the lesbian thing is going to be even harder to pin down.) I think we'll agree that a guy putting his penis in the anus or mouth of another man is "homosexual behavior" on both people's part.

How about this: walking down the street holding hands with a guy? Homosexual behavior, or not? How about open-mouth kissing another guy? Does that count? How about flouncing through the grocery store in a fuschia gauze blouse tied at the waist, with teal harem pants and a saffron sash? Homosexual behavior? How about a guy wiggling his butt when he knows another guy is walking behind him? How about smiling and winking at a stranger who seems gay, and starting a conversation with them? How about putting on a wig and eye makeup and lip-synching to Barbra Streisand songs in front of the mirror? What about wearing silk hose and a garter belt under your business suit, and giggling to yourself all day because nobody knows? Is that acceptable, or is that "homosexual behavior?"

How about curling up on the sofa with your best friend, cuddling and eating popcorn and stroking one another's half-naked bodies while you watch old musicals on TV? Homosexual behavior? (It doesn't seem to be, by Anon's definition.)

Or do you only mean behaviors that result in ejaculation of semen into the mouth or anus of another person of the same sex? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but it doesn't really seem like that's the issue.

JimK"

Obviously, the term can have different meanings. I think if you were talking about the textbook that Theresa quoted, from the context it was written, I think it was just talking about sexual behavior. You could also mean homosexual behavior as in behavior that those engage in homosexual activity also commonly engage in. If you want us to say something so you can get to a punchline, why don't you just tell us what you want us to say.

January 06, 2006 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Theresa,
Thank you for providing us with this information. It is good to hear from rational - if different- viewpoints and certainly to be able to read what is in other texts and what other kids are learning."

Theresa's magnanimity truly is remarkable considering that the last time she shared something here, a couple of you were ranting at her and calling her a liar. Quite the saint, I'd asy.

January 06, 2006 10:57 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

... so you can get to a punchline...

I already delivered the punchline. I don't think this is really about ejaculation into orifices. And neither do you, apparently, judging from your answer.

JimK

January 06, 2006 11:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"Theresa's magnanimity truly is remarkable considering that the last time she shared something here, a couple of you were ranting at her and calling her a liar. Quite the saint, I'd asy."



Tilden PTSA members and MCCPTA members would have more to say that ejecting her to sainthood over that directory issue.

January 06, 2006 11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I already delivered the punchline. I don't think this is really about ejaculation into orifices. And neither do you, apparently, judging from your answer."

Any idea what it is really about?

January 06, 2006 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Of course anyone can, with a little friction and a little imagination, have "sex" with anyone or with any of various inanimate objects or, even, animals."

So, Jim, you concede that anyone can have "sex" with any partner they choose?

What you can calling "gay" is simply someone who prefers to do it with someone of the opposite gender, then. Pleasure is not the issue because, obviously, for a guy to do this, it would be required to get in the proper frame of mind.

Gender preference is a moral choice and an aesthetic choice. Biology determines sex drive. It doesn't determine preference of the circumstances.

So bizarre that we would even think to protect people from discrimination based on what they prefer. Or that we would seek to tell kids, do whatever impulse strikes you. Kids should be taught how to have a happy and healthy life.

January 06, 2006 1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Tilden PTSA members and MCCPTA members would have more to say that ejecting her to sainthood over that directory issue."

I thought Theresa's kids were in Catholic school. Are you saying the PTA kicked her out?

January 06, 2006 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, part of what I said is that people can have "sex" with ... nonoptimal partners. We have recently had a mayor in Spokane Washington, and I think a governor somewhere, maybe New Jersey, who, after years of marriage, were more or less outed practicing homosexuality."

They were outed abusing their offices. It's not uncommon for married men to become restless. For some of them, gay sex has an attraction because there are some ways in which it's easier to engage in.

"I'm not sure a guy would throw away a marriage and a career on something that was just a preference."

Oh brother.

"I have no doubt that people can have sex, even occasionally pleasurable sex, with a wide range of "partners," including their own hands, but everybody seems to agree that we have a tendency one way or the other, at least us guys."

So then, it's not an orientation but a preference.

"Now, I don't find it impossible that some guys like both men and women, and just choose what's handy or what society approves of, though science has not found this to be a common experience."

Science has not come to any conclusion here.

"As you say, it's "logical," but it doesn't happen very often. It sounds like you might feel that way, I never did."

This is the whole point, Jim. Any research in this area is never really valid. It's based on feelings. Only the subject knows if they're telling the truth. You guys rely on this truth to attack the Spitzer study but ignore it if any findings go your way. We need to tell kids the truth about this stuff. The truth is we don't know what causes people to feel the way they do.

January 06, 2006 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"I thought Theresa's kids were in Catholic school. Are you saying the PTA kicked her out?"

hmmm the word misconstrual comes to mind for this anon

January 06, 2006 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon defines homosexual activity as being between two or more members of the same gender. Putting aside Jim's comments, what is with the "or more"? Is heterosexual behavior that which occurs between a man and two or more women, and vice versa? This "or more" addition smacks of the nonsense being promulgated by Stanley Kurtz these days, that same sex marriage will somehow lead to polyamory."

I didn't mean to imply that, Dana, but I do think there is a legitimate point that multiple partners is much more common, practically ubiquitous, among gay men.

"The Catholics might want to believe the numbers for gays and lesbians total no more than 1%. Firstly, if they did, I don't think there would be any discussion here. You need a critical mass, and I don't believe 1% cuts it. I also don't believe the 10% number that was prevalent decades ago. But it all depends on your definition, and we've not resolved that at any level of society."

You're right. Indeed, if you define it as someone with innate attraction to the opposite gender, I think that would 0% of the population.

"Are you gay if you've ever had any kind of sexual contact with a member of the same sex? Then the numbers are probably 20% or more, since kids experiment all the time. What qualifies as sexual contact, as Jim described? Is a single experience enough to make you gay forever? How about fantasies? Persistent fantasies can certainly make you a homophobe or a professional anti-gay preacher or politician."

Fascinating.

"As long as we can't agree on a definition, we're going to be at each other's throats."

I think this whole throat thing is in your imagination.

"STIs -- there is a great deal of misinformation in this text. It begs the point -- if you use a condom improperly, you're at risk. Period. That holds for gays and straights, vaginal, anal or oral penetration. The point of the video is to make it much less likely for that to happen.

HPV is not a sexually transmitted disease; most humans have had it by the time they reach puberty. And the new vaccine will prevent the complications. And the only persons at risk will be Christian fundamentalists who refuse their children permission to obtain it, because they don't trust their kids. I wonder why?

Syphilis rarely causes sores anywhere but the penis.

You might get some kids to stop just short of vaginal intercourse, but you're not going to prevent sex. Get past that. It has never happened, and it never will. Abstinence class won't succeed, fire and brimstone won't succeed, STDs won't succeed. And, of course, all this abstinence empahsis has done has moved penetration from the vagina to the mouth and anus, Dr. Ruth's favorite orifice."

Guess what else doesn't work? Condom training. The best way to protect kids would be to sustain a society where extra-marital sexual activity is considered wrong. It won't be 100% effective but will, in the long run, save lives.

"As for the question about all sexual desire being innate, such as desire for animals and chains (do those go together, outside an abbatoir?): I have no idea. Speaking from a biological and evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that one's sexual identity and sexual orientation would be innate (by which I include the immediate post-natal period, at least in other animals). Beyond that, how those desires manifest in the society in question will probably be a complex mix of culture and biology. Humans have become very adept at all types of sexual behavior. We can only speculate as to the reasons and the mechanisms. Bonobos are pretty good at it as well. So since it really hasn't been studied, I can't answer that."

Hence, the "no choice" argument is a bunch of propaganda.

"All I can say is that western monotheists have always frowned on anything but plain vanilla heterosex, and that was picked up by psychiatry and psychoanalysis. But they only had their bias, and very little data. Until the extremists are removed from goivernment I don't expect there will be any money to fund any research on sexual behavior. Just look at the extremist attacks on Kinsey over the past few years. Those people are afraid of the research, because they fear the answers."

Right now, people can't do any research that would possibly diverge from the APA or AMA party line or they face censure. There is no academic freedom here. Traditional morality is extremism to you. Maybe you're the extremist.

January 06, 2006 2:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"hmmm the word misconstrual comes to mind for this anon"

maybe it was bad grammar on your part-

what were you trying to say earlier?

January 06, 2006 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Right now, people can't do any research that would possibly diverge from the APA or AMA party line or they face censure. There is no academic freedom here."


Proof of this anonymous or just a blanket statement??????????

January 06, 2006 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"maybe it was bad grammar on your part-"

This anon sidestepping the issue of course.

January 06, 2006 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Proof of this anonymous or just a blanket statement??????????"

You think I'm wrong?

January 06, 2006 3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This anon sidestepping the issue of course."

Sidestepping what? I thought that's what you said. If you didn't mean that, I'm fine with that too. Just say what you mean.

January 06, 2006 3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Tilden PTSA members and MCCPTA members would have more to say that ejecting her to sainthood over that directory issue."

Can anyone translate this for me?

January 06, 2006 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Can anyone translate this for me?"

Don't speak, imbecile, man.

Surfer Rameses

January 06, 2006 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THANK YOU, THERESA, FOR SHARING THE EXCERPTS FROM THE BOOK FROM AVE MARIA PRESS. THE EXCERPTS APPEAR TO BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS EXPRESSED TO ME A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO BY THE ARCHDIOCESES’S REPRESENTATION ON THE OLD CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

I DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS, WHICH FOLLOW WHAT THERESA PROVIDED:

Some excerpts from the chapter on Homosexuality (thirteen):

They start by introducing Joe, a homosexual who has AIDS and stop sexual activity.

"Joe pointed out what the medical and behavioral sciences acknowledge : we don't fully understand what cuases a person to be sexually attracted to somone of the same sex. Genetic disposion, homones, family upbringing, peer experiences, and a person's sexual history are among the factors that may influence sexual orientation. How much influences any of these factor exerts may vary from person to person."

GENETIC DISPOSITION AND HORMONES IN THE WOMB DO APPEAR TO BE SIGNIFICANT, AND PROBABLY EXCLUSIVE (CERTAINLY IN MOST CASES), FACTORS IN DETERMINING SEXUAL ORIENTATION. FAMILY UPBRINGING, PEER EXPERIENCES, AND A PERSON’S SEXUAL HISTORY MAY WELL EXPLAIN SOME SEXUAL BEHAVIORS, BUT THE EXPERTS WITH WHOM I HAVE CONSULTED HAVE PRETTY MUCH REJECTED THESE LAST THREE FACTORS AS CAUSES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

WHETHER CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE (EITHER SAME SEX OR OPPOSITE SEX) IMPACTS SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS AN INTERESTING SUBJECT. DR. WILLIAM HOLMES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL SCHOOL, A PROMINENT RESEARCHER IN THE AREA, HAS DONE DETAILED STUDIES, AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT, AS A GENERAL MATTER, SEXUAL ABUSE IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SAME SEX ORIENTATION. HAVE ANY REPUTABLE RESEARCHERS DONE ANY SYSTEMATIC STUDIES OF THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF MALES WHO WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED BY PRIESTS? ARE A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF VICTIMS NOW SELF-IDENTIFIED HOMOSEXUALS? THE ANSWER TO SUCH A QUESTION WOULD NOT DEFINITIVELY ANSWER THE OVERALL QUESTION OF THE IMPACT OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, BUT IT WOULD OPEN FURTHER AVENUES OF STUDY.

IN ANY EVENT, THE QUESTION OF THE ETIOLOGY OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE REVISED CURRICULUM THAT WAS TO BE PILOTED LAST SPRING.

....
"Who is Homosexual?

Many people - especially adolescents - experience a time of confusion about their sexual identity. someone may fee attraction to a person of their own sex or have a person of their own sex demonstrate sexual feelings for them, and wonder, "Am I homosexual ?"

THAT IS WHY THE REVISED CURRICULUM MADE IT CLEAR THAT “FLEETING [SAME SEX] ATTRACTION OR CONTACT DOES NOT PROVE LONG-TERM SEXUAL ORIENTATION.”

...
example of someone they know..
"Very few people are homosexual. You may have heard the statistic that "one out of ten people is gay or lesbian." That estimate turns out to be much too high and based on faulty research. Three recent sudies have found a much lower figure.

They cite 3 studies, 1 ) a Minnesota study that said 26% of 12-year olds said they were uncertain of their sexual orientation and then at 18, only 5% were unsure and 98% of those that said they were sure said they were heterosexual..2) the Guttmacher study and another study in France, both of which put the number at 1%.

NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE PRECISE PERCENTAGE. THE REVISED CURRICULUM DID NOT ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. BUT WHETHER THE NUMBER IS 1% OR 10% IS NOT TERRIBLY RELEVANT. THE ISSUE IS NOT HOW RARE HOMOSEXUALITY IS (WE ALL AGREE THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE HETEROSEXUAL), BUT WHAT WE TEACH ABOUT THOSE WHO DO NOT HAPPEN TO BE HETEROSEXUAL.

"You may know people who tease, pick on, or are even violent to those they suspect to be homosexual. these behaviors are clearly wrong because they are not loving, respectful, or just.

May people, however, confuse respect with approval. They think that if you respect people who are gay or lesbian, you must also approve of their sexual lifestyle. This is a mistaken belief. Ethics requires us to respect people, not their actions. "

Okay, so this make the point that the Catholic faith holds that homosexual behavior is wrong, which clearly isn't going to fly in a public school. But I don't think you can make the statement that homosexual sex is just fine and dandy either, without starting to tread moral ground that you shouldn't be touching. Like the famous "baptist church is biblically misguided" impression that the judge believed the last curriculum implied.

AS FOR THERESA’S LAST STATEMENT THAT JUDGE WILLIAMS BELIEVED THAT THE CURRICULUM IMPLIED THAT THE “BAPTIST CHURCH IS BIBICALLY MISGUIDED,” IN FACT THE CURRICULUM DID NO SUCH THING AND THE ONLY STATEMENT REGARDING RELIGION WAS THAT “DIFFERENT RELIGIONS TAKE DIFFERENT STANDS OF SEXUAL BEHAVIORS AND THERE ARE EVEN DIFFERENT VIEWS AMONG PEOPLE OF THE SAME RELIGION.” PERHAPS JUDGE WILLIAMS BELIEVED THAT A FEW STATEMENTS IN SOME BACKGROUND TEACHER RESOURCES MIGHT HAVE BLED INTO THE CURRICULUM; I HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE TEACHERS THAN THAT.

ANYWAY, THE STICKING POINT IN HIS DECISION WAS NOT THE “RELIGION” PART – MEMBERS OF THE OLD CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WERE PREPARING TO RECOMMEND THAT THOSE TEACHER RESOURCES BE REMOVED WHEN THE COMMITTEE WAS TERMINATED. THE STICKING POINT WAS THE ABSURD PROPOSITION THAT IF THE CURRICULUM WAS TO TEACH THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDICAL COMMUNITY HAS CONCLUDED THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER AND THAT MOST EXPERTS DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS A CHOICE, THEN MCPS WAS BOUND BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO PRESENT THE “OTHER VIEW” THAT HOMOSEXUALTY IS A MENTAL DISORDER AND CAN BE “REPAIRED.”

BUT TO ADDRESS THERESA’S PRINCIPAL POINT HERE – THAT SHE DOESN’T “THINK YOU CAN MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS JUST FINE AND DANDY EITHER, WITHOUT STARTING TO TREAD MORAL GROUND THAT YOU SHOULDN’T BE TOUCHING” - I WOULD NOTE THE FOLLOWING:

NOTHING IN THE REVISED CURRICULUM SAID THAT “HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS JUST FINE AND DANDY.” INDEED, THE REVISED CURRICULUM DID NOT DISCUSS HOMOSEXUAL SEX AT ALL. WHAT THE CURRICULUM SAID IS THAT THE “ALL MAJOR PROFESSIONAL MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS AFFIRM THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER,” AND THAT THERE ARE FAMILIES IN OUR COMMUNITY HEADED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES. THOSE ARE SIMPLY FACTS.

IF STUDENTS DEDUCE FROM THOSE FACTS THAT THERE IS NOTHING “WRONG” WITH BEING GAY, FINE.

IF PARENTS WANT TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS’ POSITION AFFIRMING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER IS INCORRECT, THEY ARE FREE TO DO, JUST AS PARENTS IN DOVER, PA, ARE FREE TO TELL THEIR CHILDREN THAT DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS INCORRECT.

IF PARENTS WANT TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE MEDICAL ASSESSMENT THAT IT HOMOSEXULITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER, IT IS “WRONG” OR “SINFUL” TO BE GAY OR TO EVER ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX (EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF A PERMANENT, COMMITTED, MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP), THAT IS THEIR BUSINESS.

THERESA’S USE OF THE PHRASE “FINE AND DANDY” SADLY TRIVIALIZES THE LIVES OF PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO BE GAY. SHE IS CERTAINLY FREE TO ADHERE TO THE TEACHING OF HER RELIGION THAT GOD CALLS ON HOMOSEXUALS TO BE LIFE-LONG CELIBATES. BUT I FIND IT HURTFUL FOR HER TO TREAT SO CAVALIERLY THE HAPPINESS OF THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO HAPPEN TO BE GAY. LIFE-LONG CELIBACY IS A HARD ROW TO HOE, AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS LEARNED. I CAN UNDERSTAND IT FOR THOSE DEDICATED INDIVIDUALS WHO CHOOSE TO DEVOTE THEIR LIVES ENTIRELY TO OTHERS AND TO GOD, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THEIR OWN PERSONAL LIVES. BUT TO IMPOSE LIFE-LONG CELIBACY ON THOSE WHO HAVE NOT MADE SUCH A CHOICE IS, I BELIEVE, MISGUIDED AND HARSH. OF COURSE, IF ONE BELIEVES THAT THE ONLY LEGITIMATE REASON FOR HAVING SEX IS PROCREATION, THEN THAT OPENS UP A WHOLLY DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.

David

January 06, 2006 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David said

"THERESA’S USE OF THE PHRASE “FINE AND DANDY” SADLY TRIVIALIZES THE LIVES OF PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO BE GAY"

Well that would be the CRC way...would it not?
Is this the same Theresa who is secretary of CRC?

January 06, 2006 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:


" I was quite active on the list serve for NCC on this issue and the PTA there (funny how PTAs seem to be dominated by very liberal folks) I believe were quite relieved when I left. "


Oh those liberals in PTAs who accept people being gay.....is that what you mean?

January 06, 2006 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

theresa said:

"I think the fact that the PTAs were so upset by CRCs letters and not at all upset by the other lady who mailed BCCs letters is that ours were effective.

Not to get sidetracked, but a few quick points :

1 - we didn't take the directories, parents with kids in the schools in every case gave them to us. We had several offers at every school. The parents knew we were going to use them to mail the school, and gave them to us anyway. Kind of shows you that more than just a few loons were not happy with this curriculum.

2 - we were not soliticing, we were providing information directly related to a school curriculum issue. A few of the directories had statements in the front with limitations on usage. We ran those by the attorney before using those directories. So, what we did was not unethical, immoral or illegal. You might say we were providing a public service.

3 - Most of what we mailed WAS the curriculum. The pilot schools test grades got letters that contained a 3 page doubled sided printout of the curriculum - VERBATIM. No modifications - not the whole curriculum clearly, but not taken out of context either. Section references provided. One cover letter - the myths and facts section or a letter from Dr. Ruth (Jacobs :-) on the health risks that were being ignored. The cover letter was one side of one page, the health letter was one side of one page - we had the back in Spanish. Total of one page both sides compared to 3 pages both sides of curriculum. Actually the myths and facts came out of the curriculum too.... so again, most of what we mailed was the curriculum.

4 - I believe the school system was trying to slip this through without the parents really understanding what their kids were going to be taught - TO WIT :

4a. the pilot school did not provide adequate notification of the parent meeting. In one pilot school case the notes about the parent meeting went home the day of the meeting.
4b. At the parent meetings - the 30 or so pages of curriculum were handed out, the parents were given 10 minutes to read it - and then they asked for questions and COLLECTED them again.
4c. No real overview was presented about what the kids were going to be taught !
4d. The controversial teacher resources, which are supposed to be available for parents to review, were not available at the parent meetings either.

What we did was to make it impossible for the school system to slip this by the parents without review. I think the reason that is why the PTA is so angry - our letters were effective. Susan's letters were long, rambling and I think the only folks that bothered to read the whole letter were the liberal folks who were mad about getting them, which is why the BOE saw the return rates that they did - I doubt most parents even started to read it - the type was small, margins small, 4 pages front and back, etc.

We didn't make that mistake. Concise and to the point. Backed up with actual curriculum included.

A public service for our schools :-)."



Liar liar pants on fire. People came out in droves to refute those letters and you know it. Tilden PTSA and MCCPTA took CRC to task.

Parents came out and said in press and elsewhere that CRC lied in the letters. You forget TTF, etc. have copies of those letters.

Nice try Theresa..are you revising history?

January 06, 2006 4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:

"What we did was to make it impossible for the school system to slip this by the parents without review. I think the reason that is why the PTA is so angry - our letters were effective."

and Theresa said:

"Concise and to the point. Backed up with actual curriculum included. "

____________________________
Tilden's then PTSA President had this to say about the CRC letter:

To: [Tilden listserve]
From: [Susan Wyderco]
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:26:59 -0000
Subject: [tilden] Changes to health curriculum

I and other members of the Tilden community have received a letter addressed to "Parents of [my child's name]" from a group calling itself "Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum." This letter purports to warn parents of an impending change to the health curriculum that, the letter states, "defends and advocates sexual variations."

Coincidentally, just last Friday I had the opportunity to examine the two hour health curriculum information that the letter claims to describe. I participated in a focus group with two school professionals, two eighth graders, and another parent. We reviewed carefully the exact information that will be presented to some eighth graders in a pilot program that will be offered later this school year. (Participation in the pilot is entirely voluntary.)

In my opinion, the letter we have received badly mis-states the information that is included in the new component of the curriculum. The new curriculum defines words (such as homosexuality) that our children encounter on a daily basis. It provides factual information in an appropriate and non-sensational manner. It does not "defend and advocate sexual variations." The curriculum, and the total health curriculum in general, strongly advocates abstinence from sexual relations.

I urge you not to come to any conclusions about the new component of the health curriculum on the basis of this letter (or, indeed, merely upon my description of it.) Your children deserve for you to first examine the curriculum before deciding whether it is appropriate or not.

Should you decide that the new curriculum contains information that is inappropriate for your child, the school system makes it easy for you to have your child "opt-out" of participating. That has been the case in the past with portions of the health curriculum which deal with issues touching upon human sexuality; it is true with this portion of the curriculum as well.

Susan Wyderko
PTSA President


and now Tilden PTSA Resolution:

Final Resolution
Adopted May 10, 2005

WHEREAS the Tilden Middle School Parent Teacher Student Association compiles and publishes annually a student directory that includes potentially sensitive information such as the name, street address and telephone numbers of all students whose parents have agreed to have such information included, and

WHEREAS by common knowledge and accepted practice this directory is intended exclusively for the private use of the Tilden community to facilitate communication within the Tilden community, and is not intended to be used for any other purpose, and

WHEREAS an organization calling itself the Citizens for Responsible Curriculum (CRC) has conceded that it surreptitiously obtained a copy of the student directory and used the information in it to develop a mailing list for a purpose inconsistent with the intended or appropriate use of the directory, and

WHEREAS the President of the Tilden Middle School PTSA has formally asked the CRC to describe how it obtained the list and with whom they have shared it or to whom they may have sold it, and the CRC has declined to reply,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Tilden Middle School PTSA objects in the strongest terms to the misuse of the directory by the CRC, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the PTSA demands that the CRC respond promptly and completely to the questions raised by its President about the source and intended use of the directory information, specifically identifying any instances in which this information may have already been sold or otherwise made available to another individual or entity, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the PTSA demands the CRC agree in writing to cease using the information obtained from the directory, and to return to the PTSA all copies of the directory information now in the possession of CRC, in whatever form the information may exist, or certify in writing that this information has been destroyed.


___________

Now Theresa... what say you?

January 06, 2006 5:21 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

A judge rejected the curriculum as unconstitutional...

Twwweeeeet! Out of bounds.

The judge did not "reject the curriculum" or say it was unconstitutional. He issued a ten-day restraining order after two days of reviewing the complainants materials, and a half day after receiving (can't tell if he looked at them) the school district's materials. The restraining order just means there may be grounds for a suit, and it stopped the implementation for a short time -- 10 days -- so parties could negotiate. If the complainants can't be satisfied then they can proceed with the suit. That's all it was, as you well know. And a settlement was negotiated.

This would've been thrown out of court in a heartbeat if the two sides had been able to prepare and argue their cases, that is, if it had gone to a real lawsuit.

JimK

January 06, 2006 5:37 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, I'm concerned. Will you please click on THIS LINK and see if the letter that's reproduced there seems familiar to you at all? That's what the Tilden parents got -- it's so full of misrepresentations I can't believe you still defend it.

JimK

January 06, 2006 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:

"A judge rejected the curriculum as unconstitutional..."

and Theresa said:


"Theses resources were rejected :"


Theresa are you going to tell us all you do not know what the difference is between teacher resources and curriculum?

Nice try...but big difference and then again you know that.

January 06, 2006 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:

"This is rehashing old stuff and I don't think it is accomplishing anything..."

No it does not when you lie. Revising history seems to be your game for today.

Theresa also said:

"Did you attend the parent sex ed meetings at the pilots ? Did you follow when the notices about the sex ed meetings went out at the pilot schools by checking with parents at each pilot school with kids in those grades (not two weeks notice, that was for sure). Did you sit in on the parent sex ed presentations about the curriculum given by the pilot schools ?
I did. Did you ?

I know what the schools did (or didn't do), because I was there, I followed it, and I witnessed it. Did you ?"

Well actually yes and I know you are not telling the truth.

January 06, 2006 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:

"As for Susan's opinion of the curriculum "It does not "defend and advocate sexual variations"" - well the judge disagreed with her, didn't he ?"

Did he...?

Point us to exactly where the judge said the above you are quoted as saying about advocating for sexual variations.

January 06, 2006 9:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:

"I read your comments on it, and the only one I would agree with is we should have added "about". Didn't really catch that before - thought it was obvious (the school clearly isn't going to have sexual experimentation in classrooms - well maybe in Massachusetts)..."

__________________________

Yes Theresa you are on record as saying to NCC about sex ed issue last spring and seemingly to imply MCPS would be doing same as in Mass.

_____________________
Theresa wrote to her school community last March:

Is everyone okay with this?
Because here is a little snapsnot of what's next and where this ends up:

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/9_Sept/900fist1.htm

January 06, 2006 10:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa wrote:

"I can't find the back up link on the CRC website for the transgenderism quote, but there is one. It points to I think an AMA study"



This one Theresa?????????

Here is the issue of Ben Patton's testimony at BOE courtesy of TTF website.

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2005/08/more-crc-ugliness-at-school-board.html

Both curricula have the same thing. It is a section that says:

For Teacher Reference Only (The information in the shaded area is not to be shared with students.)...Transgender refers to someone whose gender identity or expression differs from conventional expectations for their physical sex. This term includes transsexual and transvestite.(Source: American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, Vol. 92, No. 4 (Oct. 1993), pp. 631-634)

January 06, 2006 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:

"Where's the line guys ?"

The line with the words "opt out" if you do not want your child in sex ed as it relates to sex ed in MCPS.

Very easy...

But when you yourself blur the lines and play fast and loose with what you and CRC purport to be in curriculum..well that is a whole other issue.

January 06, 2006 11:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because when you start blurring the lines, taking abstinence till marriage out of the sex ed classes and teaching please use condoms when you have sex instead, the lines aren't clear anymore.


****************
Are you now going to tell us abstinence was not discussed in curriculum and was taken out? How about that condom video? How many times was abstinence said in that?

Blurring those lines again Theresa????

January 06, 2006 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really hate to have to rehash this stuff, but for the benefit of anyone who may be new to the discussions in Montgomery County, the CRC allegations that MCPS and the Citizens Advisory Committee disregarded CDC materials on sexually transmitted infections (STIs)is a lie. Here are the facts:

All CDC materials on STIs are available to health teachers, and the separate unit on STIs discusses the subject at great length. What occurred before the Citizens Advisory Committee -- which was dealing at that time with the unit on Family Life and Human Sexuality (not the separate unit on STIs) -- was that one member of the Committee (Ms. Brown) offered as teacher resources for that unit CDC materials that dealt only with same-sex STI transmission. We asked the MCPS staff whether these materials were already available in the STI unit and we were assured that they were. Ms. Brown gave no explanation as to why she was offering those resources again for the FLHS unit, when she was not also offering the resources dealing with opposite sex transmission of STIs. The overwhelming majority of the Committee rejected Ms. Brown's suggestion because it was redundant and, more to the point, was made purely to stigmatize homosexuals. The proposed revised FLHS unit did not discuss sexual activity, so placement of those resources in that unit really made no sense. Obviously, such resources are needed for the health curriculum, and that is why they are in the STI unit.

I am perfectly happy to discuss these issues in a respectful manner. Lies and misrepresentations, however, are unacceptable in fair discourse. If we all try to be as honest as we can, then we may learn something from each other. But if people lie, then it makes if very hard for anyone to learn from anyone else.

January 06, 2006 11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"SHE IS CERTAINLY FREE TO ADHERE TO THE TEACHING OF HER RELIGION THAT GOD CALLS ON HOMOSEXUALS TO BE LIFE-LONG CELIBATES. BUT I FIND IT HURTFUL FOR HER TO TREAT SO CAVALIERLY THE HAPPINESS OF THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO HAPPEN TO BE GAY. LIFE-LONG CELIBACY IS A HARD ROW TO HOE"

David

As Jim and I have reasoned, no one is being asked to be celibate. All gays are perfectly capable of functioning as heterosexuals just as there are many examples of heterosexuals performing homosexual activity when by circumstances it becomes the only avenue. Behavior is a choice.

January 07, 2006 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"GENETIC DISPOSITION AND HORMONES IN THE WOMB DO APPEAR TO BE SIGNIFICANT, AND PROBABLY EXCLUSIVE"

Let's see the evidence, David.

January 07, 2006 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What we did was to make it impossible for the school system to slip this by the parents without review. I think the reason that is why the PTA is so angry - our letters were effective.

A public service for our schools :-)."

On behalf of responsible parents of Montgomery County, thanks to CRC. Public schools will be hopeless until the liberal stranglehold on the PTA and NEA is released.

January 07, 2006 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Liar liar pants on fire."

Has anyone in TTF reached a maturity level above sixth grade?

January 07, 2006 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A judge rejected the curriculum as unconstitutional...

Twwweeeeet! Out of bounds.

The judge did not "reject the curriculum" or say it was unconstitutional. He issued a ten-day restraining order after two days of reviewing the complainants materials, and a half day after receiving (can't tell if he looked at them) the school district's materials. The restraining order just means there may be grounds for a suit, and it stopped the implementation for a short time -- 10 days -- so parties could negotiate. If the complainants can't be satisfied then they can proceed with the suit. That's all it was, as you well know. And a settlement was negotiated.

This would've been thrown out of court in a heartbeat if the two sides had been able to prepare and argue their cases, that is, if it had gone to a real lawsuit."

Wrong, Jim. It was a restraining order but the language in the judge's opinion made perfectly clear how the case would be resolved. That's why the group of Keystone cops that is the MCPS school board ousted the curriculum.

January 07, 2006 10:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...unique risks of homosexual sex...

Theresa ... what is "homosexual sex" supposed to be? Please tell me one thing that gay people so sexually, that straight people don't do? To argue that the school should somehow teach about the "unique risks of homosexual sex" is nonsense.

PB

January 07, 2006 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Theresa are you going to tell us all you do not know what the difference is between teacher resources and curriculum?"

The judge rightly determined this is a false distinction.

January 07, 2006 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am perfectly happy to discuss these issues in a respectful manner. Lies and misrepresentations, however, are unacceptable in fair discourse. If we all try to be as honest as we can, then we may learn something from each other. But if people lie, then it makes if very hard for anyone to learn from anyone else."

A question for only David to answer: who lied and when?

January 07, 2006 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's a bottom line here:

If the sex-ed curriculum presented monogamous marriage as the ideal model, lives would be saved.

The rejected curriculum made extramarital sexual activity seem acceptable. There are some kids to whom this message would make no difference. There are certain kids who take what they are taught seriously who could be harmed by it if they decide to pursue homosexual activity or promiscuity.

No kids would have been helped by the curriculum proposed and rejected last year.

January 07, 2006 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All I can say is that western monotheists have always frowned on anything but plain vanilla heterosex"

As far as I know, this is not just limited to the West. Can you tell us about any societies where homosexuality or promiscuity are considered acceptable.

January 07, 2006 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have no doubt that people can have sex, even occasionally pleasurable sex, with a wide range of "partners," including their own hands"

So let's get this straight, Jim. You think men can become aroused to perform sex that is unpleasurable?

January 07, 2006 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"An analogy would be the treat for duodenal ulcers when I was in medical school, and the treatment today. Doctors thought they were caused by stress, so they tried to reduce stress. When they were finally able to believe their eyes and the research that they were bacterial infections (it took about twenty years for that to sink in), they began treating the infection and curing the disease. But had they never challenged their assumptions they could not have done so."

Bad analogy, Dana. They were incorrect about the cause of ulcers but it was obviously a disease.

The fact that ulcers were caused by bacteria was actually discovered by scientists in another country. They were able to look beyond the status quo of the US medical establishment. The AMA was wrong just like they are about homosexuality.

January 07, 2006 10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we didn't take the directories, parents with kids in the schools in every case gave them to us. We had several offers at every school. The parents knew we were going to use them to mail the school, and gave them to us anyway."

Unless TTF disputes this, the conversation has ended here. The directories are for the purpose of parent to parent communication. CRC, a group of parents, used them for this purpose.

January 07, 2006 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa, I've seen that link before. He argues about promiscuity, physical health, mental health, life span, and the definition of monogamy, which have nothing to do with sexual orientation. All his data, also, is junk, and I expect Dana will have something to say about that, if she bothers.

Really, I just asked what "homosexual sex" is supposed to be. The fact is, there is nothing special about "homosexual sex." So as far as you wanting to teach about its risks, what do want the schools to say? If there is an epidemic in a subpopulation, how do you deal with it? Do you attack sickle-cell anemia by teaching kids that it's dangerous to be black?

PB

January 07, 2006 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The fact is, there is nothing special about "homosexual sex.""

Unrestrained as it is by any traditional moral system, male homosexuality is more likely to be promiscuous, random and, by definition, extramarital. It's all part of the attraction for some. It leads to tragic consequences.

Lesbianism is probably not that dangerous. Women do indeed to be less promiscuous and lesbianism is more a rejection of traditional male roles than a sexual preference.

January 07, 2006 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So as far as you wanting to teach about its risks, what do want the schools to say?"

How about pointing out that anal sex, if not done with an exclusive marital partner is so dangerous that, if engaged in regularly, might be considered suicidal?

January 07, 2006 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do you attack sickle-cell anemia by teaching kids that it's dangerous to be black?"

An ugly insult to minority members of our community.

January 07, 2006 11:33 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

So let's get this straight, Jim. You think men can become aroused to perform sex that is unpleasurable?

Anon, think about those pictures from Abu Ghraib, with prisoners with erections and the Americans pointing at them and making fun of them. Did you think the prisoners were enjoying that?

It seems obvious that, as I said, friction and imagination can make up for a lot in the actual physical situation. Like, how sexy is your hand, really?

JimK

January 07, 2006 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about pointing out that anal sex, if not done with an exclusive marital partner is so dangerous that, if engaged in regularly, might be considered suicidal?

That's fine, but anal sex is a mostly heterosexual behavior.

PB

January 07, 2006 11:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, think about those pictures from Abu Ghraib, with prisoners with erections and the Americans pointing at them and making fun of them. Did you think the prisoners were enjoying that?

It seems obvious that, as I said, friction and imagination can make up for a lot in the actual physical situation. Like, how sexy is your hand, really?"

Abu Ghraib was a clear indication of how wicked our popular culture has become. Those soldiers played video games, surfed porn websites, visited sex chat rooms. The sex ed curriculum should resist and not accomodate that culture.

We agree on the other matter. I don't understand why you don't see the implication for the whole "choice" issue.

January 07, 2006 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's fine, but anal sex is a mostly heterosexual behavior."

Not exactly but it's irrelevant. Remember CRC stands against the normalization of extramarital hetrosexual activity as well as homosexual behavior.

January 07, 2006 11:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The judge rightly determined this is a false distinction."

Bull-oney!

All the judge "determined" was that a 10 day Temporary Restraining Order was in order.

The FACT is that PFOX and their local stooges settled with MCPS without getting their blessed concept of "gay=sin which should be *cured*" included in the curriculum. This FACT speaks volumes as to their $33,000.00 pro-bono lawyers' certainty of defeat should they have continued to press their shaky case. Both "viewpoint discrimination" and "teach the controversy" arguments have been thrown out of court repeatedly, most recently in the Dover, PA case about Intelligent Design. Get over it.

January 07, 2006 11:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...the normalization of extramarital hetrosexual activity...

That is an odd change of subject. It seems entirely possible that anal sex mostly occurs between married couples.

PB

January 07, 2006 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Those soldiers played video games, surfed porn websites, visited sex chat rooms."

And most likely voted for the same ticket you did. Go figure!

January 07, 2006 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And most likely voted for the same ticket you did. Go figure!"

Hmmm..I wonder who Bill Clinton or the Hollywood culture leeches that create this culture voted for.

January 07, 2006 12:10 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I don't understand why you don't see the implication for the whole "choice" issue.

A guy is gay. His friends and his church would hate him if they knew; for all he has been told, God Himself will reject him if he loved someone he was actually attracted to. So he marries a woman -- it happens every day. And when the lights go out, all he has to do is close his eyes and pretend. Fantasizing during sex that you're with somebody else -- happens every day.

JimK

January 07, 2006 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""The judge rightly determined this is a false distinction."

Bull-oney!"

The judge quoted from the "resources" freely to bolster his reasoning. He recognized no distinction.

January 07, 2006 12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That is an odd change of subject. It seems entirely possible that anal sex mostly occurs between married couples."

Don't know if the statistics are available but if its an exclusive marital relationship its perfectly safe.

January 07, 2006 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A guy is gay. His friends and his church would hate him if they knew; for all he has been told, God Himself will reject him if he loved someone he was actually attracted to. So he marries a woman -- it happens every day. And when the lights go out, all he has to do is close his eyes and pretend. Fantasizing during sex that you're with somebody else -- happens every day."

He's made a correct moral choice. What makes him "gay" in your book? Because he really wants to have sex with guys but has chosen not to? Maybe it just seems more attractive because it is forbidden fruit. Maybe it's just a psychological problem to want to do something that's not good for himself, his family or society.

And if he's performing sexually in his marriage, it's absurd to say he's not enjoying it or denying himself some essential element of life. The victimization you guys seem to hang your hat on is very elusive.

January 07, 2006 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It was a restraining order but the language in the judge's opinion made perfectly clear how the case would be resolved."

"The judge quoted from the "resources" freely to bolster his reasoning. He recognized no distinction."

Well obviously your opinions differ from those of the lead attorney on the case, the one who decided to settle with MCPS for absolutely nothing other than a seat or two (if CRC ever gets its act together) on the CAC.

Do tell why would they walk away from this *slam dunk* of a case...

January 07, 2006 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe they were helping out in Dover...

January 07, 2006 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do tell why would they walk away from this *slam dunk* of a case..."

The suit was to stop the curriculum. The county threw the curriculum out. What else was left to litigate?

January 07, 2006 12:31 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

What makes him "gay" in your book?

Fascinating, Anon. It appears that you think a guy's sexual orientation is defined by where he puts his penis. That's why Montgomery County needs a good comprehensive sex-ed curriculum, to combat exacty that kind of naivete.

I sometimes call that the "pornographication" of sex education, and I think it is a core offense routinely committed by the CRC.

JimK

January 07, 2006 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Maybe they were helping out in Dover..."

Thankfully, in Maryland, the judges think for themselves. In Pennsylvania, the judge's opinion consists of "cut and paste" from the NY Times.

We should be thankful.

January 07, 2006 12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim

The sex ed program is about sex. Not who we like to hang out with.

January 07, 2006 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, if we're just talking about affection, I just saw King Kong last night. Maybe we need to discuss animal-human romances.

January 07, 2006 12:43 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

If you want to narrow the definition of sex down to what you see in porn movies, then that's your business. I want my children to get a more realistic view of it, for instance I would like them to understand that sex has something to do with love, and that a person needs to understand their feelings somewhat before they become sexually active.

JimK

January 07, 2006 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"would like them to understand that sex has something to do with love, and that a person needs to understand their feelings somewhat before they become sexually active."

so why do you keep making references to science? love and feelings aren't the realm of science

January 07, 2006 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I would like them to understand that sex has something to do with love, and that a person needs to understand their feelings somewhat before they become sexually active."

Well, if you're afraid to tell them this yourself, consider taking them to church.

January 07, 2006 1:50 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

love and feelings aren't the realm of science

But of course they are. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on those subjects, whole journals dedicated to them.

JimK

January 07, 2006 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"would like them to understand that sex has something to do with love"

how about teaching them that sex is part of a certain kind of love- the marital kind? not just acting on any impulse

January 07, 2006 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But of course they are. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on those subjects, whole journals dedicated to them."

You mean like the peer-reviewed stem cell research from South Korea. The disclosures there came from attempts at replication not peer review. By the way, most professions have peer review- it's not limited to science. It's not validation- it presumes integrity.

January 07, 2006 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PasserBy said:
"Do you attack sickle-cell anemia by teaching kids that it's dangerous to be black?"

Anonymous replied:
"An ugly insult to minority members of our community."

Seeing as you talk of the "inherant risks" of male homosexuality, I don't why one would be an insult and the other not.

Theresa said:
... the unique risks of homosexual sex ...

The "unique" health risks of homosexual behaviour are not unique at all; they can apply to anyone who would behave in such a way; "homosexual" only describes that the behaviour is amongst persons of the same-sex.

Anonymous said:
Unrestrained as it is by any traditional moral system, male homosexuality is more likely to be promiscuous, random and, by definition, extramarital. It's all part of the attraction for some. It leads to tragic consequences.

It's interesting to know how you perceive male homosexuality, as it helps progression. What strikes me especially is when you say that male homosexuality is "by definition", extramarital. How did you come to such a conclusion? What exactly is your definition of "male homosexuality"?

Anonymous said:
Lesbianism is probably not that dangerous. Women do indeed to be less promiscuous and lesbianism is more a rejection of traditional male roles than a sexual preference.

You've hit a core point here: women do tend to be less promiscous than men. Recognise that this is a difference between males and females; forget about homosexuality altogether for the moment. As a side note: lesbianism is not a rejection of traditional male roles; it's merely the female equivalent of male homosexuality, and it definitely is less risky as there are no males involved.

There are men who want a stable relationship; there are men who simply want to "score" as many times as possible. For the promiscuous men, they are kept "at bay" by the women they decide to have sex with. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate on the fact that women are generally frowned upon when they "sleep around", but men are not (and are often even praised). This is a generalisation, but it is true when looking at the population as a whole. From this you can see why male homosexuals generally tend to be promiscuous, and why lesbians are generally not. In short: it's a bloke thing, not a gay thing.

With that being said, there are many who don't fall into the stereotype. There are many stable monogamous male couples and the married couples (especially the ones with children) are the ones that completely break the gay stereotype in every way (and they should); their "behaviour" becomes as risky as a committed heterosexual couple.

If society is to continuously oppress homosexuals based on their misconceptions, they will only reinforce the stereotype and encourage homosexuals to conform to that stereotype. Unless society educate themselves and their children, it will only continue.

January 07, 2006 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But of course they are. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on those subjects, whole journals dedicated to them."

Haven't you learned yet that studying feelings will always be pseudo-scientific until we can read minds?

January 07, 2006 2:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What strikes me especially is when you say that male homosexuality is "by definition", extramarital. How did you come to such a conclusion?"

It's because marriage is, by definition, heterosexual. It was started and defined by the creator.

January 07, 2006 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As a side note: lesbianism is not a rejection of traditional male roles; it's merely the female equivalent of male homosexuality,"

I think you're wrong, Julian.

January 07, 2006 2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If society is to continuously oppress homosexuals based on their misconceptions, they will only reinforce the stereotype and encourage homosexuals to conform to that stereotype. Unless society educate themselves and their children, it will only continue."

This is part of the problem, Julian. Education should reflect truth not create it. What TTF wants the schools to do is create a society that doesn't really exist. It will be a futile effort ultimately but who knows how much damage will be done in the meantime.

January 07, 2006 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thankfully, in Maryland, the judges think for themselves. In Pennsylvania, the judge's opinion consists of "cut and paste" from the NY Times."

Yes, those W-appointed judges are all so inclined to "cut and paste" from the NY Times.

January 07, 2006 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
This is part of the problem, Julian. Education should reflect truth not create it. What TTF wants the schools to do is create a society that doesn't really exist. It will be a futile effort ultimately but who knows how much damage will be done in the meantime.

From what I read of the curriculum (the one that was scrapped), no truth was actually created; it merely presented what is currently known by mainstream professionals. I'm aware of what TTF wants to accomplish, and frankly I agree with most of it.

Anonymous said:
I think you're wrong, Julian.

At least exlpain why you think I'm wrong to help the discussion progress further.

Anonymous said:
It's because marriage is, by definition, heterosexual. It was started and defined by the creator.

I wasn't brought up believing that definition, despite the majority of marraiges conforming to it.

January 07, 2006 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, those W-appointed judges are all so inclined to "cut and paste" from the NY Times."

This one did. Read the opinion yourself- not one original insight.

January 07, 2006 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"not one original insight."

The same could be said about so-called INTELLIGENT DESIGN. It did not have "one original insight" that differed from CREATIONISM. No wonder the judge didn't need any new arguments. Been there, done that.

January 07, 2006 3:14 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Haven't you learned yet that studying feelings will always be pseudo-scientific until we can read minds?

There is a whole lot of science about feelings, aka emotion. What I find interesting is your attitude about it. Because you're uneducated, you assume that knowledge doesn't exist. Then, informed that such knowledge does exist, you feel somehow authorized to denigrate an entire field -- actually, a number of interrelated disciplines -- and hold that science can't apply to their work.

JimK

January 07, 2006 4:24 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, maybe this will help you out, a few things that were in the curriculum that CRC opposed.
* The curriculum talked about how being sexual active can lower your self-esteem. Remember? CRC was horrified by that
* Sexual activity for teens can lead to disappointment. Yes, that's what the school was going to be teaching eighth-graders
* Being sexually active in your teen years can lead to depression and even suicide -- this is what they would have been taught in eighth grade
* You might lose your friends -- the schools would be teaching them this fact if the curriculum had gone forward
* Kids were going to be taught that promises made before sex are often forgotten afterwards
* Being sexually active can damage your self-concept: MCPS was going to teach that
* They would have been taught that the "negative results" of sexual activity for teens "far outweight the positive"
* Abstinence, they were going to be taught, enables you to preserve your self-esteem, and is the best choice "before marriage and for teens" -- this is what MCPS was going to teach eighth-grade students
* Tenth graders would have been taught about date/acquaintance rape, statutory rape, sexual harassment and sexual assault -- good stuff to know about, don't you think?
* They would be taught that abstinence "permits relationship to develop without sexual pressures" -- a good thing
* Students would have learned a lot about the responsibilities and lifestyle changes that accompany pregnancy and parenthood, and they do not look sweet for unwed teens
* Tenth graders were going to be encouraged to make a "commitment to chastity"

Lucky thing CRC and PFOX were able to block that curriculum, isn't it?

JimK

January 07, 2006 4:37 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

Well, yes. Since the old curriculum contained absolutely no information about "sexual variations" as called for by COMAR, we should all expect certain words to be introduced that were not used before.

But I have to ask you Theresa, which "new curriculum" are you talking about?

In the revised and now rescinded 10th grade curriculum (which you can find by clicking on RESOURCES above and then on the second link from the top on the left side), the term "abstinence" appears four times, once on pages 20 and 25, and twice on page 27. Also on page 27, the first item under abstinence is "Commitment to chastity."

In the revised and now rescinded 8th grade curriculum (found at the same place, first link from the top), the term "abstinence" occurs 3 times, including once as the heading of a section about abstinence. See pages 9 and 24.

Christine

January 07, 2006 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"The judge rightly determined this is a false distinction."

Wrong anon...as usual.

January 07, 2006 8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"Unless TTF disputes this, the conversation has ended here. The directories are for the purpose of parent to parent communication. CRC, a group of parents, used them for this purpose."

MCCPTA and Tilden PTSA disputed the usage already. It was CRC promoting their agenda and not to benefit any other parents other than those in CRC which had NOTHING to do with PTA.

The letter sent has already been dissected on lies within that body. Theresa herself was under discussion to be banned from her school community listserv for using it to promote CRC's homophobic agenda,etc.

People did not buy it then and neither do we now.

January 07, 2006 8:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:

"And of course, CRC was right.
The judge agreed with us."

Just offered up a 10 day hold...no victory...just a temp hold.


Now where is CRC? Not on new CAC. Just how many attended the last CRC community meeting?

By the way Theresa did you not say this too to your school community:

"Two, the main issue I have with this curriculum is that parents were not notified; and were not given an abstinence only curriculum as an alternative."

Okay what were parents not notified about? What alternatives where there offered for those that opted out?

January 07, 2006 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To refresh Theresa's memory:

Montgomery County Public Schools

Facts About the Health Education Curriculum


Note: material in this fact sheet is provided by MCPS and should answer the questions raised by PTA leaders.


On November 9, 2004 the Board of Education of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) adopted the 2003-2004 Annual Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development by a unanimous vote. This Citizens Advisory Committee has 27members, including parents, citizens, students, and school staff.



The action of the Board does not affect most major components of the existing health curriculum and is in line with the curriculum of many other school systems in the region.



FACT: Abstinence continues to be the method advocated as the only absolute protection against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).



FACT: Prior parental permission is required for students to participate in any class session on human sexuality and sexually transmitted infections.

FACT: Parents may review instructional materials on human sexuality and STIs in advance when considering whether to approve their child's participation in such instruction.

FACT: Alternative units are available if parents decide that they do not want their children to participate in the classes:

* An alternative unit on "Abstinence Only;"
* An alternative unit on stress management and environmental health; or
* An independent study unit on a health education topic of the parent's choosing.

FACT: Changes to the health education curriculum in Grades 8 and 10 were made as a result of a three-year study by a 27-member advisory committee.

FACT: The MCPS curriculum has addressed the subject of contraception since 1970 and the use of condoms since 1984.

FACT: At least four school districts in the Washington metropolitan area already include a condom use demonstration as part of their curriculum. (Howard, Prince George’s, District of Columbia, and Baltimore City)

FACT: The MCPS-produced video, Protect Yourself, reinforces abstinence and demonstrates condom use as a response to calls by public health officials to stem the rise in STIs.

FACT: At least five school districts in the Washington metropolitan areas already include instruction about sexual variation in their curriculum. (Howard, Prince George’s, Fairfax, District of Columbia, and Baltimore City)

FACT: The MCPS curriculum regarding sexual variation includes terms and definitions, and provides information to dispel stereotypes that encourage acts of bullying, hate and violence.

Montgomery County Public Schools
Background About the Health Education Curriculum
Action taken by the Board of Education on November 9, 2004 will result in the following:

1. The MCPS produced video, Protect Yourself, has been approved for systemwide use in all high school health education classes starting in spring 2005. In response to a significant increase in sexually transmitted infections among teenagers and calls by public health officials for instruction about condoms, this video was produced to provide a demonstration of proper condom use for the purpose disease prevention. The video supplements high school instruction on contraception that has been in place since 1970. It was field-tested in three high schools during spring 2004 and was well received by students and teachers. Teachers must complete mandatory training on how to use the video with students prior to using it in the classroom. (NOTE: Neither this video, nor any other video currently approved for use in MCPS includes discussion of flavored condoms.)

2. The revisions to the Grade 8 and Grade 10 health education curriculum to include information about sexual variations will be field-tested in three middle schools (Grade 8 only) and three high schools during spring 2005. The revised curriculum defines terms such as gender identity, gender role, and sexual orientation and focuses on dispelling stereotypes and misconceptions in an effort to diminish discrimination based on sexual orientation. Only the six schools participating in the field-test will have teachers trained on the use of the curriculum prior to providing the instruction on sexual variation that was approved by the Board of Education. The new curriculum revisions will be evaluated by parents, teachers, and students in the six schools participating in the field-test. Parents of students enrolled in Health Education in those six schools will be given an opportunity to review the curriculum prior to making the decision of signing the parental permission form. The evaluation results of the field-test will be submitted to the Advisory Committee in June 2005, and then the Committee will decide what further action they will recommend to the Board.

Instruction in family life and human sexuality is required under state law for Maryland public schools, with the specific curricular content under the discretion of local boards of education. The changes to the curriculum approved by the Board on November 9 were recommended as a result of a three-year study by the advisory committee and school system staff. The study found that the health education program lacked information taught in other school systems and hindered the ability of teachers to address questions brought by students and parents concerning sexual variations and disease prevention.

The Board of Education and the Montgomery County Public Schools are committed to supporting active parental involvement and a responsible instructional program.

January 07, 2006 10:08 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa

The "word count" approach is silly, but you're still wrong. Of course the sexual identity words went from zero to nothing -- that's the sexual variation component, required by state law and overdue regardless. Everybody knows that's in there, and that it wasn't before. I think you wasted your time counting those.

But this part is just wrong.

Abstinence (4 times/2 times)
Chastity (2 times/0 times)

"Partner" went to three occurrences, one of which was "marriage partner" and the others were in the usage "partner/friend." I can't imagine what's offensive about that, except when you pornographize it and imply that it means "sex partner" and not boyfriend or girlfriend or spouse.

In the 8th and 10th grade curricula, the word "abstinence" appears seven times, not including titles or the phrase "periodic abstinence" for the rhythm method. And the 10th grade curriculum suggested that students make a "commitment to chastity," so you're wrong to say that word isn't in there.

You're opposed to an evil curriculum that recommends a commitment to chastity? Maybe you should put something in your ears, stop listening to what people are saying, and go actually read the curriculum over again. Don't listen to what they tell you it says, go look at what it says.

And as far as the "sex play" line in the original proposed curriculum, I find it funny that you are quoting and liking a book that says almost exactly the same thing: Many people - especially adolescents - experience a time of confusion about their sexual identity. someone may fee attraction to a person of their own sex or have a person of their own sex demonstrate sexual feelings for them, and wonder, "Am I homosexual?" You quoted that to us.

Oh, the CRC got a lot of raised eyebrows out of misinterpreting that one line, as if it was "encouraging" children to engage in sex play -- I think you guys knew what it was really about. And it turns out to be a sentiment that you actually agree with.

Jim

January 07, 2006 10:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was asked two questions earlier today on this thread. Here are my answers:

1. Evidence that homosexuality is likely connected to genetic and hormonal matters?:

See, for example, the presentation of Dr. Wertsch, Chair of the American Medical Association's Advisory Committee on GLBT matters, to the Community Forum in Bethesda last September.

2. Shouldn't the dangers of sexual activity associated with homosexuality be included in the curriculum if homosexuality is to be mentioned?

The point is that those dangers were already discussed thoroughly in the STI unit. Indeed, last Spring, the CAC had the Director of Health Education set forth in some detail the materials that are used in the STI unit, so that we could be sure that such matters are adequately covered. So the materials that concerned Theresa are already in the curriculum.

My hope, frankly, is that this information is sufficiently sobering to students to lead them to delay potentially risky behaviors as long as possible -- ideally, until they have found their lifelong soulmate. But if the ideal is not met (and in life, the perfect is rarely found), then we want them to know how to minimize risks.

But to get back to Theresa's point, the revised curriculum language that MCPS Staff had drafted and that the CAC was considering in 2003-04 was not limited to issues of homosexuality, but, rather covered heterosexuality also. Indeed, if you go back and look at the unit, you will see that very little of the unit dealt with matters that were specifically about homosexuality. If there had been a proposal to merge the STI unit with the FLHS unit, then there would have been a discussion about the materials that were in the STI unit. But no one -- including Ms. Brown or Ms. Turner -- made such a suggestion. If anyone had proposed that we include ALL the STI materials in the teacher resources for the FLHS unit (as redundant as that would have been), then, if there had been agreement on that, ALL the STI materials would have been included. There are plenty of risks in heterosexual activity; to ONLY talk about risks of homosexual activity can only have one purpose: to stigmatize homosexuality.

In conclusion, let me say this, although it should be very obvious from everything I have written: A health education curriculum that would fail to provide comprehensive information on the risks of ALL kinds of sexual activity would be gravely deficient. Opponents of the Nov. 2004 revisions have sought to leave the public with the completely incorrect impression that the health curriculum did not provide that information. That is the sort of misrepresentation that makes useful public discourse so difficult.

Finally, on what should be a less contentious note, let's hear it for the Skins' defense. On to Seattle!

January 07, 2006 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to respond to some of the textbook excerpts in Theresa’s posting. Since going the route of dueling statistics is not usually a constructive exercise, I’ll keep that to a minimum. But a few clarifications are worth making.

1) Regarding the term “safe sex” – the authors assert this phrase is used to oversell the effectiveness of condoms. In actuality, the term that is used – and has been for years -- is “SAFER sex”, precisely to drive home the point that sex is not risk-free. But it can be made less risky with proper condom use.

2) General statements in the book such as “condoms reduce risk but not to an acceptable level” are vague and subjective. Who gets to define acceptable? No parent wants his/her teen to cause a pregnancy or become pregnant – we all ideally want a risk of zero. But given that there is only one way to achieve that – abstinence – it is not surprising that a solid majority of adults in the U.S. (74%) (See National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, With One Voice, 2004) want teens to learn more about abstinence and contraception. This makes sense because if abstinence “fails” and no other method replaces it, then the risk skyrockets to a level beyond what condoms (or other contraceptives) would offer by way of protection. Teens need information about abstinence and contraception precisely so they can take steps to reduce their risk of pregnancy and STDs. And this includes accurate information about condom effectiveness.

3) Regarding condom efficacy specifically, it is important to distinguish between typical use and perfect use when citing statistics. Perfect use means proper use each time sexual intercourse occurs. Typical use takes into account inconsistent use and other factors that sometimes occur. With perfect use, condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. With typical use, they are 85% effective in preventing pregnancy (see Trussell, J. Contraceptive Efficacy 2004). While the authors (who cite lower effectiveness rates from a questionable source) conclude from this that condom use should not be encouraged, the more constructive and protective conclusion is that teens must be taught how to use condoms correctly and encouraged to do so every single time they have sex. And, in fact, this is exactly what the Montgomery County School Board was trying to do when it supplemented the curriculum to include the condom demonstration video – the county was trying to maximize the likelihood that teens who did have sex would not only use condoms, but use them consistently and correctly so they could benefit from the highest effectiveness rates.

I hope these clarifications are a helpful reminder that, although parents may have very personal, passionate and often divergent beliefs about what children should be taught about reproductive health, we have a common desire to keep them safe and healthy. As part of that, we need to have faith that if teens are given clear, user-friendly, and accurate information about the risks associated with sex how they can protect themselves from them, they will do the right thing. After all, they want to stay safe and healthy too.

January 08, 2006 11:36 AM  
Blogger Christine said...

Theresa said...

...Christine -
The count was probably run on the curriculum that was originally approved by the CAC. The "same sex play one." That's the only reason I know that the numbers might be off - I didn't write that original blog.


No, Theresa. The "count was [NOT] probably run on the curriculum that was originally approved by the CAC." The terms "abstinence" and "Commitment to chastity" appear the same number of times in both versions of the revised curriculum. The numbers you reported are just plain wrong. After doing some research, I've got another idea why your "numbers might be off."

But please, let me be sure I understand what you are saying to me in the quote above.
1. You did not actually write your comment that compared the numbers of time words are used in the old and new curricula.
2. You didn't use quotation marks or give credit to the original author but instead plagiarized the data and commentary as your own.
3. You took someone else's writing at face value without verfying its accuracy.

Is that about right? Apparently so.

After about 10 minutes of making a few clicks and skimming a few PDF pages, I easily found the actual facts about word counts in the revised curriculum. And now I've just spent another few minutes searching the CRCs blog archives and found that your comment about word usage actually contains an entire blog posted by "Andy." I repost Andy's original CRC blog entry here:

Thursday, February 10, 2005

From One .......to Fifty-eight: That's Acceleration!

Look at these stats about word usage in the new curriculum compared to the current curriculum. The speed at which the schools are embracing the opportunity to teach about sexual variations in the classroom is amazing and needs to be reported so that everyone can appreciate how quick they are to leave traditional values in the dust! Varoom...

Current Curriculum/New Curriculum

Homosexual and Homosexuality (0 times/19 times)
Sexual identity (1 time/20 times)
Sexual orientation and Orientation (0 times/16 times)
Partner (0 times/3 times)
SUMTOTAL: That's 1 time in the current curriculum compared to 58 times in the new!!

But wait there's more:

Husband/Wife/Father (0 times/0 times)
Abstinence (4 times/2 times)
Chastity (2 times/0 times)

Compared to the current curriculum, this is quite a change, and clearly this is more than a definition of the terms. It's an in-depth discussion that the kids will receive. The key element here is the notion of "sexual identity", about which they go into much detail for the 13 and 15 year olds. Sorry, but this isn't an appropriate lesson for kids who are being encouraged by good parents not to be sexually active.

Why do the schools feel that they need to "teach" this in a classroom? If that's not bad enough, the curriculum will get them actively questioning their sexual orientation.


From the curriculum:

Components of personal identity
a. Self-concept: Who am I?
1) Socially
2) Emotionally
3) Cognitively
4) Physically (both physical features and health)
5) Sexually (both expression and orientation)

If you don't believe that a school would really try to do this in a classroom, just read it ( the new curriculum). And this is only the tip of the iceberg......

- posted by Andy @ 10:07 PM


To find Andy's post on the CRC blog, go to this URL and scroll down to February 10, 2005: http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/blog/archive/2005_02_01_archive.html

This blog was posted on the CRC website on 02-10-05 and remains in their archives today, 01-08-06. The CRC has allowed this this pack of "errors" to remain on their website for almost a year without ever bothering to check its accuracy. On January 6, 2006, CRC secretary, Theresa Rickman, plagiarized the erroneous blog and posted it without attribution on the TTF.org, Inc. blog. Let's see how long it takes CRC to print a correction to this archived pack of "errors."

Please note: I am giving the CRC the benefit of the doubt here by using the term "errors." However, should the CRC persist in maintaining uncorrected false information on their website, I may be forced to use the more correct term "lies."

Only the tip of the iceberg, indeed. I couldn't have said that any better myself, Theresa, uh Andy, uh whoever...

Christine

January 08, 2006 1:06 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa argues Agreed, they are similar. One enormous difference. One talks about having feelings, the other talks about acting on them. That could be said as the key difference for a lot of this debate, couldn't it ?

Let me quote your own book again: someone may feel attraction to a person of their own sex or have a person of their own sex demonstrate sexual feelings for them...

What do you suppose that word "demonstrate" means?

Of course it means "actions."

Your book, which you approve of, says exactly the same thing as the curriculum you disapprove of. The CRC misconstrued that one line, over and over again, trying to make it sound like MCPS was advocating sexual experimentation, when you knew they weren't. It was just something you could make ugly: the CRC's role in life, making beautiful things ugly.

JimK

January 08, 2006 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to keep the record clear, the "same sex play" phrase was, at my urging, administratively taken out of the curriculum for piloting and replaced with language that simply made it clear that fleeting same sex attraction did not necessarily mean that someone is gay. This occurred during the weeks following the BOE vote on piloting the curriculum. THAT is the kind of thing that piloting a new curriculum is designed to do: Catch things that could be improved and improve them.

January 08, 2006 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:

"And for every infuriated public email I got at NCC accusing me of being a homophobe, without logically debating at all whether or not I the curriculum had gone over the line, I got several more private ones of support..this was back when the curriculum included the lovely "same sex play among adolescents is normal" quote."


Theresa you were told by quite a number of parents in your school community to let parents make up their own minds while those same parents were told where to access all MCPS items to read themselves and not rely on anyone's interpretation including yours. They did not want you to tell them how to parent their children on this issue.

In fact one of the old CAC committee members from your school community took you to task for playing fast and loose with your spin about old CAC members and the curriculum.

You apparently could not hang with that and continued on where you then were looked at for being banned. ..and the sex play thing.....well Jim pointed out to you that your own textbook you are quoting here said the same thing...did you tell your school community that?

January 08, 2006 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:

"This series was written by Bob -
it is a 4 part series."

Who is Bob??????????

January 08, 2006 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

theresa said:

"The numbers are something like 47% of all new infections can be attributed to MSM - I believe. It would seem to me prudent to point out to kids that by engaging in male homosexual sexual activity they are at a higher risk of catching a disease than with heterosexual sexual activity."


Theresa with or without condom protection, etc., for both sets? Or are we assuming that sex among gays is always the riskest and heterosexuals do not have anal or oral sex, etc., ever without protection?

January 08, 2006 3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spare us, please! We already read all 4 parts in February 2005 when the last of them was posted to your no-comments-allowed blog.

Of course, if there's a Part 5 with transcripts of Retta's and Jackie's CAC meeting tapes, we'd be interested in reading those.

See if you can't get Retta to cough those up too, will you please, Theresa?

Thanks!

January 08, 2006 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"Spare us, please! We already read all 4 parts in February 2005 when the last of them was posted to your no-comments-allowed blog."

Well CRC's one sided blog/forum is right in line with so called CRC public forum that sucks out the wazoo--no differing views allowed no siree.

Only Retta as "CRC Precious"(funny moniker) seems to use it. Of course all one sided from Retta's thoughts on what is important to read and hear about. But then again while she is still trying to get herself on new CAC..what else is left for her and CRC to do?

Anyone want to venture an explanation as to why PFOX and CRC had not offered up a parent of an "exgay" for CAC to represent them?

January 08, 2006 6:31 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

David, I understand your trying to clear up the facts about the statement that same-sex play is common in kids and doesn't mean they're gay. It was included in earlier drafts of the curriculum, and taken out later, I think mainly because of the controversy surrounding the wording.

But the fact is, there was only controversy because certain dishonest people tried to pretend is said something it didn't. It is simply true that younger adolescents may have sexual feelings they don't understand, that they're curious, and that sometimes they act out in experimental or playful ways. Most people know what the game of "doctor" is about. And the other fact is, this kind of play among kids, with same-sex playmates, does not mean you're gay. Which is what the "same-sex play" statement actually said.

I found it fascinating that Theresa proudly quoted a nearly identical statement in her Catholic sex-ed book, telling us how much she agreed with it, while in the same discussion she mentions the quote from the curriculum as objectionable.

The fact is, the CRC was not opposed to details of the actual curriculum, they never wanted to improve it. If you read it, you see there really is nothing "pro-homosexual" or anything that encourages sexual experimentation in the proposed curricuula for 8th and 10th grades. It is a very cautious and conservative course on human sexual behavior. Yes, it was comprehensive, and yes it was inclusive; that was the district's intention, that's what the state wants, and that's what the people of the Montgomery County -- in fact, of the entire country -- want. The CRC's goal was not to fix the curriculum, but to destroy it. They didn't oppose it for what it said; to them the new sex-ed curriculum merely provided an opportunity to undermine the public schools and attempt a coup. Throw out the school board, replace them with extremists ... crazy idea.

I can't tell if Theresa was influenced by the propagandists of the CRC leadership, or if she was one of them. She seems to be a person who thinks for herself, with a very conservative tendency, yet she parrots the mistinterpretations promulgated by the anti-MCPS groups word for word. I'd be curious to know who starts this stuff.

JimK

January 08, 2006 8:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim K writes:
"I can't tell if Theresa was influenced by the propagandists of the CRC leadership, or if she was one of them. She seems to be a person who thinks for herself, with a very conservative tendency, yet she parrots the mistinterpretations promulgated by the anti-MCPS groups word for word. I'd be curious to know who starts this stuff."

___________________

Theresa knows exactly what she is doing in trying to tell everyone else what to do to raise their children. Never mind she should just raise her own and let other parents do the same. She can opt her children out of sex ed anytime.

Please remeber that while the lawsuit was being plotted by CRC Theresa offered herself and her children up as plaintiffs for the Garza/CRC/PFOX hatched plan to sue sue sue.

Innocent in all this..not likely.

_________________

"Theresa the alarmist" wrote to our school community last spring:

The official new sex ed curriculum link on the MCPS
website


Attention all MCPS parents, and particularly those parent with older
kids in
BCC (one of the pilot schools for the new sex-ed curriculum) !

Please go read what your children are about to be exposed to! If you
find
this objectionable, please forward immediately to parents at the pilots
schools for this spring . this will become permanent at all schools
after
this spring !

Here is the actual link to the curriculum on the MCPS web site ..

(Alison, note this is not an external site)



http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/boe/meetings/agenda/2004-05/2004-1109/CACFLHD%
2020
03-04%20STAFF%20.pdf



Okay, the 8th grade curriculum starts about 20 pages in after several
memorandums including this statement :



1. Gender Identity: a person's internal sense of knowing whether he or
she
is

male or female.



Here are the parts from the curriculum I (personally, in my on-sided and
clearly biased way) find objectionable: Read #1A - why should kids be
encouraged to develop a sexual identity at age 12? 1B) your sexual
identity
is related to your "sexual gender identity "-you're your gender identity
ISN'T defined according your genitals. "Well, I have a penis but I
think I
am really female and that I was just assigned the wrong set of
plumbing."
Is that the message you want your child receiving? That's what he is
going
to get.



This is on page 9 of the 8th grade curriculum: (PLEASE GO CHECK) .. so
we
are advising already confused adolescents to go question their sexual
gender
? This is what this curriculum does.. I feel sorry for any mom with
a
slightly effeminate or very intellectual teenage boy that hasn't gotten
the
female attention he might desire. what does this curriculum do to that
child's self esteem, and self-concept? It virtually pushes him in a
homosexual direction.. Please go read the actual curriculum!!!



Please go read the actual curriculum.

Please go read the actual curriculum.





YOU NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS!





Quotes from the curriculum :

I. Define Terms Related to Human Sexuality

A. What is Human Sexuality? This term refers to emotional closeness,
sexual

health and reproduction, and sexual identity. As we study human
sexuality we

will discuss how you develop your individual sexual identity. (Source:
Life

Planning Education, Advocates for Youth, Washington, D.C page 123)

B. What is Sexual Identity? This term refers to a person's understanding
of
who

she or he is sexually, including the sense of being male or female.
Sexual

identity can be thought of as three interlocking pieces: gender
identity,
gender

role and sexual orientation. Together, these pieces of sexual identity
affect how

each person sees herself or himself and each piece is important:
(Source:
Life

Planning Education, Advocates for Youth, Washington, DC, Page 125).

1. Gender Identity: a person's internal sense of knowing whether he or
she
is

male or female. Source: American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, Vol.

92, No. 4 (Oct. 1993), pp. 631-34

2. Gender Role: knowing what it means to be male or female, or what a
man

or woman can or cannot do because of their gender. Some things are

determined by the way male or female bodies are built. For example, only

women menstruate and only men produce sperm. Other things are

culturally determined. In our culture, only women wear dresses to work,

but in other cultures, men wear skirt-like outfits everywhere. (Source:
Life

Planning Education, Advocates for Youth, Washington, DC, Page 125).

3. Sexual Orientation: the persistent pattern of physical and/or
emotional

attraction to members of the same or opposite sex (gender). Included in
this

are heterosexuality (opposite-gender attractions), homosexuality
(samegender

attractions), and bisexuality (attractions to members of both

genders). (Source: American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, Vol. 92,
No.

4 (Oct. 1993), pp. 631-34)

a. Heterosexual Or "Straight" refers to people whose sexual,

emotional and affectional feelings are for the opposite gender (sex):

Men who are attracted to women, and women who are attracted to

men. (Source: American Psychiatric Association Fact Sheet: Gay,

10

Lesbian and Bisexual Issues (May 2000)).

b. Homosexual or Gay refers to people whose sexual, emotional and

affectional feelings are for the same gender (sex): Men who are

attracted to men; and women who are attracted to women. (Source:

American Psychiatric Association Fact Sheet: Gay, Lesbian and

Bisexual Issues (May 2000)).

c. Lesbian refers to women who are homosexual. (Source: American

Psychological Association Online, Answers to your Questions

About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality. (July2003)

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

d. Bisexual or "Bi" refers to people whose sexual, emotional and

affectional feelings are for both genders. (Source: Id).

For Teacher Reference Only

Questioning refers to people who are uncertain as to their sexual
orientation. (No source)

Transgender refers to someone whose gender identity or expression
differs
from conventional

expectations for their physical sex. This term includes transsexual and
transvestite.(Source:

American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, Vol. 92, No. 4 (Oct. 1993),
pp.
631-34)

Coming Out refers to the process in which a person identifies himself or
herself as

homosexual or bisexual to family, friends and other significant people
in
his or her life.

(Source: American Psychiatric Association Fact Sheet: Gay, Lesbian and
Bisexual Issues

(May 2000)).

Intersexed refers to people who are born with anatomy or physiology
(ambiguous genitalia)

that differs from cultural and/or medical ideals of male and female.
(School
Resource



AND ALSO : (page 16)



>From the document ON the MCPS web site.. (READ #3)

B. Myths regarding sexual orientation

1. Myth: Homosexuality is a mental health disorder.

Fact: All major professional mental health organizations affirm that

homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

2. Myth: If you are "straight", you can become homosexual.

Fact: Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation
is
not

a choice.

3. Myth: You're a homosexual if you've had sex with, or even had a "sexy

dream" about someone of the same gender.

Fact: Sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during

early adolescence and does not prove long-term sexual orientation.

4. Myth: Children of homosexual parents/guardians will become
homosexuals.

Fact: Having homosexual parents/guardians does not predispose you to

being homosexual.



Here are the pilot schools :

* Martin Luther
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/mlkms/homepage.htm
King Middle School, Germantown, Maryland
* Tilden Middle School
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/tildenms/
Rockville, Maryland
* White Oak Middle http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/whiteoakms/
School, Silver Spring, Maryland

and three high schools:

* Bethesda-Chevy Chase High
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/bcchs/

School, Bethesda, Maryland
* Seneca Valley
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/senecavalleyhs/
High School, Germantown Maryland
* Springbrook High
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/springbrookhs/School, Silver Spring, Maryland.



Please attend our meeting, please attend our meeting this coming
Saturday
morning for more information:

www.mcpscurriculum.com http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/



**********************
"Theresa the alarmist" also wrote to our school community:

CRC is sponsoring a town hall meeting on March 19th where we will show
controversial condom video. Information on the townhall meeting is here :

http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/meetings.htm





In direct violation of Maryland law, THERE IS NO OPT-OUT provision for
portions of the sex ed curriculum. Please check here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/prmar6.htm. The new sex ed curriculum
encourages 10th graders to "determine their sexual identity" and tells them
that "same sex play among adolescents" is normal. The curriculum also
tells them that homosexuality is not a choice, some people are born that way
- this is a raging debate that science has produced no clear stand on. The
curriculum does not tell the children about the health risks associated with
homosexuality, while defending homosexual behavior. Tolerance is one thing,
advocacy is quite another. The curriculum very clearly crosses over from
"defining homosexuality" (which they were tasked to do) to "defending and
advocating homosexuality". Read some of the teacher resources, which
advocate that HIGHSCHOOLS should establish same sex bathrooms to provide for
transsexual students.



The Montgomery county BOE did not follow it's own policies in passing the
curriculum (broke its own laws), please check here :

http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/blog/2005/02/birth-of-new-sex-ed-curriculum.ht
ml and here :

http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/prfeb14.htm





If you would like to investigate for yourself, the new curriculum is posted
here: http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/New_FLHD_Curriculum.pdf

Read it for yourself. The Montgomery County BOE has made it just about
impossible to find on their website.

I wonder why?



And if you would like to know where this is all going to end up if you don't
get involved NOW, check this lovely little article from our friends in
Massachusetts (Mass high schools promoted a gay sex day - where they taught
12 year olds in graphic sexual terms what FISTING is..)

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/9_Sept/900fist1.htm

Theresa

January 08, 2006 9:03 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Thanks for digging that out, Anon. I guess my question was not very clear. I was looking around the web a couple of weeks ago and came across a group in Kansas City, I think, and they were saying exactly the same stuff that the CRC says. Different topic, something happening over there, but their comments were identical to what we get here in Montgomery County. And the "mad dad" wackos up in Massachusetts -- exactly the same stuff. Different stimulus, same response.

It's not that somebody looks at a curriculum, processes the information cognitively, and decides that they oppose it. No, it's coming from somewhere. Somebody has decided that "they," whoever they are, should react to whatever happens in exactly this way. You should say, "They're encouraging children to declare that they're gay in fifth grade." You should say, "They're teaching six-graders how to practice anal sex." It obviously doesn't matter what's actually in the curriculum, or what has actually happened, they say this ridiculous stuff no matter what. And of course it's an argument you can't win, because there's no substance to it. You say, It doesn't encourage kids to experiment sexually, and they say, Yes it does, and then they quote some fake statistics and you say, Those statistics were discredited the moment they were published, and they say, No they weren't, and continue to quote them.

It's like when we had our forum, and one of the papers quoted Michelle Turner saying, Where's the science? As if there wasn't any. There is a ton of science about sexuality and sexual orientation. But she can just pretend there isn't any, and stupid people will respond to that, as if there really wasn't any science and all this debate was was just some people expressing their opinions. Anon, in this very thread, pulled the same thing. First he said there was no science, then, informed that there was, he said that there can't be a science of psychology. Just can't, because he doesn't get it.

So, I don't know where they get this kind of thinking. It seems to come from somewhere, and I would love, as a student of human behavior, to understand where it originates and how it propagates.

JimK

January 08, 2006 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim K said:

"So, I don't know where they get this kind of thinking. It seems to come from somewhere, and I would love, as a student of human behavior, to understand where it originates and how it propagates."



Well here is "Theresa the alarmist's" best shot to explain this.

Take it away Theresa.

January 08, 2006 10:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's like when we had our forum, and one of the papers quoted Michelle Turner saying, Where's the science? As if there wasn't any. There is a ton of science about sexuality and sexual orientation. But she can just pretend there isn't any, and stupid people will respond to that, as if there really wasn't any science and all this debate was was just some people expressing their opinions. Anon, in this very thread, pulled the same thing. First he said there was no science, then, informed that there was, he said that there can't be a science of psychology. Just can't, because he doesn't get it."

OK, Jim. Tell us one study, any study, that indicates that there is "no choice" about sexual preferences.

January 09, 2006 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"OK, Jim. Tell us one study, any study, that indicates that there is "no choice" about sexual preferences."



This anon just running in circles over his show me the science fetish. "Theresa the alarmist" should help you out too.

January 09, 2006 7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This anon just running in circles over his show me the science fetish. "Theresa the alarmist" should help you out too."

Could anyone translate this? I don't speak nonsense.

January 10, 2006 11:29 AM  
Blogger Christine said...

OK, Jim. Tell us one study, any study, that indicates that there is "no choice" about sexual preferences.

Per Linstroem, Ivanka Savic and Hans Berglund studied PET scans of human brains exposed to human pheromones. The results were reported by Dr. Savic in the 2005 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. We have posted Dr. Wertsch's PowerPoint presentation from our September 25, 2005 educational forum here, and it includes some slides about this research.

The brains of homosexual males responded in the same manner as the brains of heterosexual females to pheromones; specifically brains of people in both groups showed arousal in response to androstadien (male) pheromones and remained unaroused in response to (female) pheromone estratetraen. This reaction was completely opposite to the reactions of heterosexual males and homosexual females. For both of these groups, pheromone estratetraen caused arousal in the brain and androstadien pheromones did not.

Each of us has no choice how our brain responds to these chemicals. I suppose it might be possible to teach some people to alter this brain chemical reaction with biofeedback training, (if you think so, show us some studies that say so) but I can say with some pretty good certainty that no one has undergone biofeedback training to learn to respond with arousal to the pheromones of someone of their own gender.

These research findings show that "there's 'no choice' about sexual preferences" in brain responses to pheromones.

Christine

January 10, 2006 12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christine

This study was not published until after the proposed curriculum last year had been rejected so it wasn't a factor in the curriculum ejected by the judge.

It is also too recent to be replicated for confirmation purposes.

All other studies like this have only shown increased indicators in homosexuals not 100% correlation, indicating that if there is a tendency, it can be resisted (that's called choice). I'll look into that and get back to you.

Here's what I do know though:

The author of this study has said that the study does not indicate whether the response is the result of innate biology or association with past experiences. In other words, it's possible that homosexuals respond to the scent of male sweat in this way because they made a choice at some point to engage in homosexual activity and now they associate the scent of male sweat with past pleasurable sexual activity.

Here's a direct quote from the study:

"The difference between HoM and HeM could reflect a variant differentiation of the anterior hypothalamus in HoM, leading to an altered response pattern. Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men (35). A third possibility is that HeW and HoM associated AND with sex, whereas HeM made a similar association with EST. These tentative mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be discriminated on the basis of the present PET data."

Interesting that your AMA expert didn't mention this remark in the conclusion of the study.

January 10, 2006 1:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, this study also found this effect did not apply to lesbians. This bolsters my personal theory that lesbianism is not based on sexual attraction at all but on the rejection of traditional male roles in society.

January 10, 2006 1:11 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

... bolsters my personal theory ...

No, it doesn't. And it also doesn't qualify you to critique scientific research in a field that you know nothing about.

JimK

January 10, 2006 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, it doesn't. And it also doesn't qualify you to critique scientific research in a field that you know nothing about."

I didn't critique the research, Jim. I quoted it. Your AMA "expert" distorted it by leaving out some key phrases.

January 10, 2006 1:42 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

No, Anon, I was talking about your 1.false (inductive, non-Popperian) inference from data to theory, and mostly to 2. your illiterate comments about statistical relationships and causality ("not 100% correlation").

JimK

January 10, 2006 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
" This bolsters my personal theory that lesbianism is not based on sexual attraction at all but on the rejection of traditional male roles in society."

What a dumb thing to say...but then again from this anon..well we understand that warped logic.

Keep going anon.. keep outing yourself as an idiot.

January 10, 2006 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, Anon, I was talking about your 1.false (inductive, non-Popperian) inference from data to theory, and mostly to 2. your illiterate comments about statistical relationships and causality ("not 100% correlation")."

Oh, I see, Jim. You were referring to my fleeting reference to other studies. We can talk about those next if you'd like. But first:

How about the one Christine carefully chose? The author of the study said you cannot draw the conclusion that TTF and the AMA "expert" have drawn.

Any counter-argument, Jim?

January 10, 2006 2:34 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

You asked for a study that showed there was "no choice" about sexual preferences. Now you complain about the date of it and say it provides no data about causation. That's two attempts to change the subject. Typical.

The authors never reported that the same person was aroused at one exposure to a pheromone and then not aroused at a later exposure to the same pheromone, did they? If people can choose this brain arousal to gender specific pheromones then you'd expect to see some variation within some individuals to the same stimuli. None was reported.

I'm glad to see you pointing out the need for replication though as it is one of the foundations of modern science. Maybe a study exposing infants to these pheromones and observing how their PET scans light up will provide more insights about the nature/nurture debate than these studies of adults.

I hope this means you'll contact your federal elected officials and urge them to provide much needed research dollars.

Christine

January 10, 2006 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No doubt, Anon-inane is an idiot who knows nothing about the scientific method. Very little is 100% anything in the natural world, especially when the quantum world is built up of probabilities. I can't wait for Anon to enlighten us on quantum mechanics some day."

Dana, you involvement on this blog hasn't been personally profitable for you. Once calm and rational, you've now become someone who uses name-calling as a debating tactic.

Quite a bit about the natural world is 100%. The Earth rotates 100% of the time. Smaller bodies are attracted to larger ones 100% of the time.

You and Jim have brainstormed and focused on a side comment. How about the comment I made about the study Christine chose as the best study proving her point? Let's finish that conversation before moving on to a new one.

"As for traditional morality -- again (I'm getting tired of having to say this) -- traditional moral society (ie, Christian society) enforced and encouraged slavery until very recently. It treated women as property until recently. And whether you like it or not, your traditional sexual morality simply is unworkable in modern society where humans do not get married at puberty."

What you fail to understand is that traditional morality protects the weaker members of society. One day, we'll look back and won't believe so many supported this sexual libertine philosophy with its many victims.

January 10, 2006 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You asked for a study that showed there was "no choice" about sexual preferences. Now you complain about the date of it and say it provides no data about causation. That's two attempts to change the subject. Typical."

The author themself left open the possibility that the response is the result of a past choice made by the individual to engage in the behavior. Nothing in this study would indicate that isn't so.

Ever drink a Martini and then, the next day, have a craving for another one? Could be the same mechanism.

January 10, 2006 2:54 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

You were referring to my fleeting reference to other studies.

No, I was referring to your inability to understand the one that was cited, or to understand how science works generally.

JimK

January 10, 2006 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, I was referring to your inability to understand the one that was cited, or to understand how science works generally."

Well, by all means, elaborate Jim. What didn't I understand?

January 10, 2006 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nonymous said:

"One day, we'll look back and won't believe so many supported this sexual libertine philosophy with its many victims."

Another idiotic statement without baseless support.

Yes anon let's talk victims of your bigotry. That right now is a bigger scandal with your constant need to view others like gays and lesbians in a lesser light than the one you think shines on you alone.

January 10, 2006 3:03 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Well, by all means, elaborate Jim. What didn't I understand?

... causality, inference, the nature of knowledge, empiricism, correlation, the action of paradigms, null-hypothesis testing and significance, peer review, erudition ...

JimK

January 10, 2006 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My comment on this study, Jim. How did it reflect my deficient understanding of science?

January 10, 2006 3:27 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

"The author themself left open the possibility that the response is the result of a past choice made by the individual to engage in the behavior. Nothing in this study would indicate that isn't so."

Yes, and the authors themselves left open two more "possibilities," right? Two possibilities you apparently don't want to talk about.

Here's a quote by Dr. Lindstroem when discussing this research:

"'We believe that our studies lend more credence to the biological explanation model than to a psychological one when it comes to homosexuality. And this result can also help remove the feeling of guilt that still often accompanies homosexuality,' Lindstroem said in an interview on Swedish public radio."

Christine

January 10, 2006 3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the wording of the study:

"Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men (35). A third possibility is that HeW and HoM associated AND with sex, whereas HeM made a similar association with EST."

and here's what I said (yes, megalomaniac that I am, I'm quoting myself again):

"it's possible that homosexuals respond to the scent of male sweat in this way because they made a choice at some point to engage in homosexual activity and now they associate the scent of male sweat with past pleasurable sexual activity."

Where'd I go wrong, Dr. Kennedy?

January 10, 2006 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting quote, Christine. I saw something a little different earlier today when I did a search.

I've got some things to get out at work but I'll try to get back to you extremists later tonight or tomorrow.

Meanwhile, you might want to consider if you want to change the name of your organization to DTF (Deny the Facts, Inc.)

January 10, 2006 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"DTF (Deny the Facts, Inc.)"

Well anon you are most familiar with the obvious about yourself on that note.

TTF members and supporters are just not making you happy today or any day..right? Cannot slide your idiotic statements by can you? They catch you and correct you every time.

Bigots like you need to be kept in check.

January 10, 2006 4:02 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

How did it reflect my deficient understanding of science?

Anon, it takes a lot of years to gain the education in a field necessary to participate intelligently in the conversation of science. Nonparticipants can comment informally and can benefit from findings, but they aren't part of the undertaking.

And here, you show us why that is.

Disrespect for scholarship is one of the hallmarks of the religious right's attempt to march us back to the Dark Ages.

JimK

January 10, 2006 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And here, you show us why that is."

Where? You're the one that has ignored the words of the study. Informally explain what I don't understand.

January 10, 2006 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Disrespect for scholarship is one of the hallmarks of the religious right's attempt to march us back to the Dark Ages."

You're the one that misquotes and misinterprets science as part of the wacko liberal left's attempt to return us to the days of paganism. Exploitation is not respect.

The author of the study offered three explanations. You focused on the one the supports your wacko views. You need to respect the scholar's statement that there are more than one explanation for the data.

January 10, 2006 5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, it takes a lot of years to gain the education in a field necessary to participate intelligently in the conversation of science."

Not participating in any analysis. I'm relying on the conclusions of the study.

January 10, 2006 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the wording of the study:

"Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men (35). A third possibility is that HeW and HoM associated AND with sex, whereas HeM made a similar association with EST."

and here's what I said (yes, megalomaniac that I am, I'm quoting myself again):

"it's possible that homosexuals respond to the scent of male sweat in this way because they made a choice at some point to engage in homosexual activity and now they associate the scent of male sweat with past pleasurable sexual activity."

Could you utilize your years of education and comment on this?

January 10, 2006 5:33 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

You focused on the one the supports your wacko views.

I don't believe I have said anything at all about the study. But I appreciate your candid assessment of my views.

JimK

January 10, 2006 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't believe I have said anything at all about the study."

We've asked you repeatedly for scientific studies that supports your wacko views. Your only response is to refer us to Wertsch's presentation at your gathering. This was part of it.

January 10, 2006 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"TTF members and supporters are just not making you happy today or any day..right? Cannot slide your idiotic statements by can you? They catch you and correct you every time."

Yeah, they really got me. Let's recap:

1. Jim went on one of his rants about how anyone who opposed the ejected curriculum refuses to acknowledge all the scientific evidence

2. Anon-clever asked Jim to name a study that indicates sexual preference is not the result of a choice

3. Jim directs his flunky, Silly Goose, to find one

4. Silly Goose makes her best selection and cites it on the blog

5. Anon-clever googles the research and looks at the paper, reading the conclusion where the author says there are three possible explanations for results of the study, two of which are that same-sex attraction is the result of chosen behaviors

6. Jim explodes and says anon-clever shouldn't try to understand all that fancy scientific thinking (refer back to #1)

I guess in your alternative universe that amounts to "catching me and correcting me". This reminds me of an old Star Trek episode.

January 10, 2006 7:23 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

We've asked you repeatedly for scientific studies that supports your wacko views. Your only response is to refer us to Wertsch's presentation at your gathering.

Anon, you're getting on my nerves. I never said anything about Wertsch. And my views are not "wacky," the belief that sexual orientation is not a choice is shared by all mainstream scientific, medical, and mental health organizations, and by most anti-gay spokesmen as well. They know you can't change orientation, but at most only behavior.

Now, you want to argue about whether something is a "choice" or not. Would that mean to you that the individual had access to their cognitive processes, considered some weighted set of beliefs, and came to a rational decision? In that case ... nothing is a choice.

We could approach this from the point of view of prospect theory -- I think Daniel Kahneman did get a Nobel Prize last year, didn't he? Prospect theory looks at how people distort the utility of choices depending on such factors as risk and probabilities of outcomes. But let's not go there.

You might be interested to read my review of Daniel Wegner's The Illusion of Conscious Will in Science a couple of years ago. The reference is Science 14 June 2002: Vol. 296. no. 5575, p. 1973. "We Don't Think the Way We Think We Think." A review by James Kennedy. I see that somebody has actually copied the review onto a web site, but it's a little hard to find. Anyway, it's not the review, but the book that's interesting. Since Nisbett and Wilson in the 70s, actually even before that, let's say since Festinger in the 50s, it has been well understood that people don't have access to their own cognitive processes. Some of "deciding" (which is so important to you) is actually rationalizing after the fact. Wegner has constructed a series of very clever experiments to identify the sequence of phenomena making up "will" or, to fit it into the present context, "conscious decision." You will find that the question of will itself is not easily resolved, never mind whether an individual's sexual trajectory goes down Path A or Path B.

So you have several kinds of converging evidence about the etiology of sexual orientation. You have physiological evidence, all of it new, all of it tentative, including neurological differences, genetic differences, behavioral correlates, twin studies, and studies of arousal in the presence of various stimuli. You have self-report data, which typically confounds several dimensions of sexual identity but can provide data shedding light on several things: the individual's autobiographical memory of his experience, sensations and perceptions that the individual experiences under certain conditions, the individual's reports of social pressures and social influences on his sexual behavior, etc. All self-report data -- now we're back to Nisbett and Wilson -- needs to be collected carefully, but there are numerous ways to do that -- see Cook and Campbell's book on quasiexperimental methods (or even Campbell and Stanley, it's shorter and easier to read) for the classic explication of validity in psychological and social research.

See, this is the problem, you don't know anything about this, but think your opinion is insightful enough to guess at the content of a century's worth of research and methodological study by people lots smarter than you.

In the final run, you have nearly all gay-identified people asserting, quite believably, and with no reason to doubt them, that they never chose their orientation. You have converging physiological evidence. You have third-person observations by clinicians, researchers, and laypersons. All saying the same thing. And on the other hand you have a couple of religious extremists saying it's a choice, and even they are backing off that line.

I did some research on hypnotic susceptibility in graduate school, even published some of it. The question there has to do with whether subjects are enacting a role (Sarbin's and Coe's social-psychological hypothesis) or going into a "trance" (Hilgard's and Kihlstrom's cognitive models). The relevance to our discussion has to do with the veridicality of self-report. Subjects "tell you" they were in a trance. They do weird things. They forget, if they have been instructed to forget. But there is no defining marker of "being in a trance" versus "thinking you're in a trance." Anything that a person who believes they are in a trance does can be duplicated by tricking someone into thinking they're in a trance. Even there, with people one-on-one in a laboratory, strapped into physiological monitors or whatever (I analyzed facial expression using Ekman and Friesen's FACS), you can't say if the person was hypnotized against their will or "chose to be" hypnotized. So given something as long-term and complex as a person's sexual orientation, you won't find any laboratory study that identifes a moment of choice, trust me. Never. Any more than you can say when a person chose to have a sense of humor, or chose their IQ.

But you've got millions of Americans saying they didn't choose their sexual orientation, and asking to be treated with respect. Someone like you, sitting around waiting for scientific "proof" (which you seem to believe exists) represents a level of cynicism that is hard for the rest of us to believe. For some reason, people like you feel that it is their place to judge others based on some preconceptions that they hold in spite of evidence, and when there is no indication that the judgment is either correct or useful.

Gay people don't hurt you any. You're not going to catch it from them, unless you're gay already, in which case, I'd wonder why you would choose to live a life of deprivation of love and closeness to another person. Your decision to disrespect them inspite of commonsense is mean-spirited and irrational.

I'm not going to say any more about it.

JimK

January 10, 2006 8:26 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

Anon said..."The author of the study offered three explanations. You focused on the one the supports your wacko views. You need to respect the scholar's statement that there are more than one explanation for the data."

Anon said..."Not participating in any analysis. I'm relying on the conclusions of the study."

Anon said..."Here's what I do know though: The author themself left open the possibility that the response is the result of a past choice made by the individual to engage in the behavior. Nothing in this study would indicate that isn't so."

You forgot about this quote by one of the authors posted above Anon, and it shows you don't "know" what you think you "know."

"'We believe that our studies lend more credence to the biological explanation model than to a psychological one when it comes to homosexuality. And this result can also help remove the feeling of guilt that still often accompanies homosexuality,' Lindstroem said in an interview on Swedish public radio."

It appears TTF and the AMA have focused on the one explanation the authors of the study found most credible and that you're the one who wants to change what the authors have said in an effort to "bolster" your "personal theory."

Christine

January 10, 2006 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You can't even admit the evidence is pretty good on transsexualism even if it is skimpier on homosexuality.Because you conflate the two and cannot bear to accept any science on this issue, let alone morality, decency or empathy."

Dana, I have purposely never commented on the transexual issue because, you're right, I don't know that much about it. The current curriculum and the ejected curriculum didn't mention it. I know you bring it into almost every discussion here but, again, I didn't feel qualified to discuss it.

Thanks for your honest characterization of the skimpy evidence on homosexuality.

January 11, 2006 7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""'We believe that our studies lend more credence to the biological explanation model than to a psychological one when it comes to homosexuality. And this result can also help remove the feeling of guilt that still often accompanies homosexuality,' Lindstroem said in an interview on Swedish public radio."

It appears TTF and the AMA have focused on the one explanation the authors of the study found most credible and that you're the one who wants to change what the authors have said in an effort to "bolster" your "personal theory.""

Christine

It's an interesting quote that you provided but we haven't seen the context. I read a more nuanced quote from the author yesterday which seem to agree with the conclusion in the paper that the data available in the study couldn't discriminate between the three mentioned possible mechanisms explaining the data. I wasn't trying to focus on one of the explanations but showing that the authors believed there was more than one possibility. One of the possibilities mentioned is the one that CRC takes and which TTF repeatedly has denounced as ignorant.

January 11, 2006 8:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim

I won't copy your long-winded comments above but they are interesting and could lend themselves to some worthy discussion. What you have failed to do, however, is validate your claim of yesterday that I didn't and couldn't understand the plain English conclusion of the authors of the study cited by Christine.

In an unreplicated study released last summer, these authors found evidence that homosexual men have a similar response to heterosexual women when exposed to male sweat. The authors in their conclusion said there was a distinct possibility that the response to the stimuli is the result of engaging in homosexual behavior. (and, yes, they also mentioned the possibility of a biological cause) You have repeatedly conceded on this blog that engaging in homosexual behavior is a choice. These researchers are presumably as knowledgable and credentialed as anyone and here they are, just last summer, saying that it's a possibility that sexual attraction is acquired from engaging in homosexual activity. I challenge you again to show what I didn't understand.

If these researchers are saying it's possible that engaging in homosexual behavior causes homosexual attraction, it seems to be irresponsible for the county sex ed curriculum not to inform kids of this possibility in any discussion about the subject. Indeed, in light of your discussion above, Jim, it would seem irresponsible to say something so vague as "homosexuality is not a choice" without elaborating on what you mean by that.

Your attempt to try to blur the words of these scientists to meet your purposes is an act discreditable to your profession and similar to your abuse of the concept of peer review.

Wacky indeed are your notions that aesthetic preferences should be protected by anti-discrimination laws or that human choice plays no part in developing preferences or that kids should be taught the pronouncements of professional associations rather than empirically determined facts.

January 11, 2006 8:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The issue of transgender has been on the table for the past year, even though only a single mention of it was made in the new curriculum. It's ok for your side to lump us in with gays and lesbians for dramatic effect, and to keep on lying and spreading misinformation?"

I don't think I've lumped you together. Again, I don't know but I guess it's possible that someone could be born or acquire a defect that needs medical treatment. It does seem to me that it's a rare enough condition that it doesn't really merit attention in a high school curriculum.

I'm a little confused about your personal situation, though. Did you say before that you fathered children as a male? That would make me think you could function that way and lead me to believe that you were not disfuntional.

January 11, 2006 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
Anon,

This is what I mean when I say that you guys don't listen


_____________

Jim described a third group...and this anon falls into it. This anon is not interested in anything but lying, being disruptive and misconstruing to derail anything that resembles inclusiveness on anything they find abhorrent...such as gays, lesbians and transexuals.

January 11, 2006 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm really sick of you using the term "Christian" as an epithet. Try to imagine how offensive it would be if anytime I found something a Jewish person did objectionable, I would ascribe it to all "Jews".

You ought to take some time to reflect how you became such a bigot.

January 11, 2006 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jim described a third group...and this anon falls into it. This anon is not interested in anything but lying, being disruptive and misconstruing to derail anything that resembles inclusiveness on anything they find abhorrent...such as gays, lesbians and transexuals."

Actually, I've tried to avoid talking about transexites at all.

I think we found out what group Jim fits into yesterday. The group that will compromise his integrity to push a cause.

And what group would you fit into with your inane comments cheerleading for nonsense?

January 11, 2006 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous in that third group wrote:

"And what group would you fit into with your inane comments cheerleading for nonsense?"

Well anon in that third group..certainly not in third group with you. I know as you try to rise above scraping your knuckles on the ground you will never understand people who are not bigots and more. Your hate is apparent. TTF just unnerves you. Jim unnerves you because he is clearly far above you. You have scored no points and that just makes you angrier by the day.


Bigots can only accept other bigots. You as a bigot are very lonely here on the TTF blog being busy trying to maintain third group stance.

Keep trying anon in that third group and get some bandages for your knuckles.

January 11, 2006 4:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim K said:

Thanks for digging that out, Anon. I guess my question was not very clear. I was looking around the web a couple of weeks ago and came across a group in Kansas City, I think, and they were saying exactly the same stuff that the CRC says. Different topic, something happening over there, but their comments were identical to what we get here in Montgomery County. And the "mad dad" wackos up in Massachusetts -- exactly the same stuff. Different stimulus, same response.

It's not that somebody looks at a curriculum, processes the information cognitively, and decides that they oppose it. No, it's coming from somewhere. Somebody has decided that "they," whoever they are, should react to whatever happens in exactly this way. You should say, "They're encouraging children to declare that they're gay in fifth grade." You should say, "They're teaching six-graders how to practice anal sex." It obviously doesn't matter what's actually in the curriculum, or what has actually happened, they say this ridiculous stuff no matter what. And of course it's an argument you can't win, because there's no substance to it. You say, It doesn't encourage kids to experiment sexually, and they say, Yes it does, and then they quote some fake statistics and you say, Those statistics were discredited the moment they were published, and they say, No they weren't, and continue to quote them.

It's like when we had our forum, and one of the papers quoted Michelle Turner saying, Where's the science? As if there wasn't any. There is a ton of science about sexuality and sexual orientation. But she can just pretend there isn't any, and stupid people will respond to that, as if there really wasn't any science and all this debate was was just some people expressing their opinions. Anon, in this very thread, pulled the same thing. First he said there was no science, then, informed that there was, he said that there can't be a science of psychology. Just can't, because he doesn't get it.

So, I don't know where they get this kind of thinking. It seems to come from somewhere, and I would love, as a student of human behavior, to understand where it originates and how it propagates.

JimK

___________________

How about answering this (above) too Theresa?

January 11, 2006 9:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How about answering this (above) too Theresa?"

Don't bother, Theresa. I tried to talk about a study with them and they just deny what it says and then say they can't discuss it with me because I haven't been trained as a scientist.

It's a catch-22. They claim we won't talk about the science and when we do they claim we're not qualified.

Here's a fact: in the conclusion of a study released last summer and cited by the AMA expert in the TTF forum last fall, the researchers say that same-gender sexual attraction may result from having engaged in homosexual behavior. Thus, they are saying that the AMA's position statement that "sexual orientation" can't be chosen may be wrong.

January 12, 2006 7:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have scored no points and that just makes you angrier by the day."

Strange. From the reaction I got from the gang, I got the impression that I had scored some points.

Maybe you couldn't follow the conversation. Here's what happened:

1. Jim accused opponents of the irrelevant, rejected curriculum of ignoring science

2. I asked him to show us a study which proved the homosexuality is not a choice

3. He and Christine selected a study that examined how gay men react to the sweat of other men

4. Being the open-minded fellow that I am, I looked the study up and read it

5. What I saw was that the study found that gay men react to sweat in the same way normal women do. The authors said there were several possible explanations for this- two of which were that the gay men associated sweat with past sexual activity. I pointed out that TTF members have repeatedly said that though desire can't be chosen, behavior can. These researchers, in contradicion to the AMA's position, were saying it's possible that you "acquire" desires from engaging in a behavior that was chosen. And, by the way, there are many reasons why someone might choose to engage in this behavior.

6. Rather than discuss this, Jim was the one who began to get angry. Refer above to his response in which he said I'm getting on his nerves and in which he then launched into a bunch of philosophy of science concepts that were irrelevant to the matter at hand. Ironically, after saying we won't accept the conclusions of scientists, he refuses to do so himself. Makes you question his qualifications.

7. Silly goose found a quote taken from an interview with one of the authors which said she preferred the biological explanation because it would help gays get over their "guilt feelings". Notably, in the conclusion of the study, written with her two colleagues to temper her bias, it was stated clearly that the data in the study could not "discriminate" between the possible explanations.

7. The idea-challenged anon resorted to that old TTF favorite, the monkey metaphor. Brilliant.

January 12, 2006 7:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, what, may I ask, is a transexite?"

I just meant transexual. I make up words some times when I'm bored.

"I don't know to whom you addressed your comment about using "Christian" as a slur, but I never have. I always say "Christian fundamentalist" or "Jewish fundamentalist . . ." I don't think anyone else here has, either. I learned about a year ago that not all evangelicals are the same, either, so I no longer lump all evangelicals together with Robertson and Reed and Dobson and Falwell."

Actually, you often get sloppy and just start using the term "Christian" in a contemptuous manner. Maybe you should just talk about conservatives or right-wing thinkers and just leave the religious beliefs out unless absolutely necessary.

January 12, 2006 8:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana said:

"Then it's relevant."

The anon in third group would never fall into that group.

January 12, 2006 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana said:

"I understand people are busy. It's just that no one has yet repsonded to anythignI've posted on the substantive issues, and it's been many, many months. All I hear at the meetings is the same faxed talking point; never any dialogue of any degree."

Now Dana...Anon in third group, CRC/PFOX and Theresa the alarmist can never do that. That is what their third group is all about. Never anything of substance just lying, misconstruing, evading, disrupting and their all out favorite of thinking they know best so they just tell us all what we should do with our children.

January 12, 2006 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Never anything of substance just lying,"

example, please

"misconstruing,"

example, please

"evading,"

example, please

"disrupting"

example,please

"and their all out favorite of thinking they know best so they just tell us all what we should do with our children"

we probably do know what's best for your children but wouldn't dream of telling you what to do: we wouldn't cast pearls before swine, as it were; TTF is the one that thinks we all need to get together and teach all our kids the same thing; did you read Jim's post yesterday? he's now supporting an organization that thinks that international treaties give all adolescents a right to promiscuity training

January 12, 2006 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"we probably do know what's best for your children but wouldn't dream of telling you what to do: we wouldn't cast pearls before swine, as it were; TTF is the one that thinks we all need to get together and teach all our kids the same thing; did you read Jim's post yesterday? he's now supporting an organization that thinks that international treaties give all adolescents a right to promiscuity training"



This anon belongs in third group as usual.

January 12, 2006 11:39 AM  
Blogger Christine said...

Your misconstrual of the scientific method is astounding because you think any one study can be used to refute an entire body of scientific knowledge.

As Dr. Wertsch pointed out at the TTF forum last fall, in addition to the pheromone studies (plural), there are human studies showing differences in the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus and cochlear functioning of heterosexuals and homosexuals as well as twins showing increased incidents of same-sex attraction within famlies, all of which point in the direction of a genetic basis for sexual orientation. In addition there are animal studies which have documented 450 different species that exhibit same-sex mating behaviors and 10% of Canandian geese nests with same sex pairs. Ignore all that information if you so choose.

"I wasn't trying to focus on one of the explanations but showing that the authors believed there was more than one possibility. One of the possibilities mentioned is the one that CRC takes and which TTF repeatedly has denounced as ignorant."

True.

Equally true: One of the possibilities mentioned is the one that TTF takes and which Anon repeatedly disses or ignores.

Don't forget. Even CRC's expert Throckmorton says same-sex attraction is not a choice.

If you weren't "trying to focus on one of the explanations," then why is it that you only included the first sentence, "The difference between HoM and HeM could reflect a variant differentiation of the anterior hypothalamus in HoM, leading to an altered response pattern," the first time you quoted this portion of the study's conclusions? After that, every time you quoted this section, you skipped the first sentence and began with: "Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men. A third possibility is that HeW and HoM associated AND with sex, whereas HeM made a similar association with EST. These tentative mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be discriminated on the basis of the present PET data."

Here's another view of the pheromone studies and how they relate to other studies in the field to ponder:

The different pattern of activity that Dr. Savic sees in the brains of gay men could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. If sexual orientation has a genetic cause, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, then the neurons in the hypothalamus could wire themselves up in a way that permanently shapes which sex a person is attracted to.

Alternatively, Dr. Savic's finding could be just a consequence of straight and gay men's using their brain in different ways.

"We cannot tell if the different pattern is cause or effect," Dr. Savic said. "The study does not give any answer to these crucial questions."

But the technique might provide an answer, Dr. Hamer noted, if it were applied to people of different ages to see when in life the different pattern of response developed.

Dr. LeVay said he believed from animal experiments that the size differences in the hypothalamic region he had studied arose before birth, perhaps in response to differences in the circulating level of sex hormones. Both his finding and Dr. Savic's suggest that the hypothalamus is specifically organized in relation to sexual orientation, he said.

Some researchers believe there is likely to be a genetic component of homosexuality because of its concordance among twins. The occurrence of male homosexuality in both members of a twin pair is 22 percent in nonidentical twins but rises to 52 percent in identical twins.


Christine

January 12, 2006 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your misconstrual of the scientific method is astounding because you think any one study can be used to refute an entire body of scientific knowledge."

I'm not misconstruing anything, Christine. I'm just taking them one at a time. Those other studies have different problems, as you probably know. One thing that's so interesting about this, though, is that in this very recent study, where the researchers presumably know about all accumulated evidence, they are stilling presenting choice as a possible option.

"As Dr. Wertsch pointed out at the TTF forum last fall, in addition to the pheromone studies (plural), there are human studies showing differences in the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus and cochlear functioning of heterosexuals and homosexuals as well as twins showing increased incidents of same-sex attraction within famlies, all of which point in the direction of a genetic basis for sexual orientation. In addition there are animal studies which have documented 450 different species that exhibit same-sex mating behaviors and 10% of Canandian geese nests with same sex pairs. Ignore all that information if you so choose."

I don't and won't ignore it. Which one would you like to examine next? Again, I'll leave it up to you.

""I wasn't trying to focus on one of the explanations but showing that the authors believed there was more than one possibility. One of the possibilities mentioned is the one that CRC takes and which TTF repeatedly has denounced as ignorant."

True.

Equally true: One of the possibilities mentioned is the one that TTF takes and which Anon repeatedly disses or ignores."

Not really, Christine and you need to be honest here. I haven't ignored the possibility that there is no choice about sexual preference. I have consistently said that the evidence is not conclusive. I have said that my personal theory is that all individuals have the capacity to have sexual relations with all other individuals but I haven't claimed that science has proved this. I do maintain, however, and I think the language in this study confirms, that science hasn't eliminated my personal theory. If your group will support teaching kids that science hasn't concluded on this matter, I will support you.

"Don't forget. Even CRC's expert Throckmorton says same-sex attraction is not a choice."

Well, as Jim's discussion the other day shows, you need to be a little more precise and find out what a person means by "choice".

"If you weren't "trying to focus on one of the explanations," then why is it that you only included the first sentence, "The difference between HoM and HeM could reflect a variant differentiation of the anterior hypothalamus in HoM, leading to an altered response pattern," the first time you quoted this portion of the study's conclusions? After that, every time you quoted this section, you skipped the first sentence and began with: "Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men. A third possibility is that HeW and HoM associated AND with sex, whereas HeM made a similar association with EST. These tentative mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be discriminated on the basis of the present PET data.""

Because someone (you) had already presented the other view.

"Here's another view of the pheromone studies and how they relate to other studies in the field to ponder:

The different pattern of activity that Dr. Savic sees in the brains of gay men could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. If sexual orientation has a genetic cause, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, then the neurons in the hypothalamus could wire themselves up in a way that permanently shapes which sex a person is attracted to.

Alternatively, Dr. Savic's finding could be just a consequence of straight and gay men's using their brain in different ways.

"We cannot tell if the different pattern is cause or effect," Dr. Savic said. "The study does not give any answer to these crucial questions."

But the technique might provide an answer, Dr. Hamer noted, if it were applied to people of different ages to see when in life the different pattern of response developed.

Dr. LeVay said he believed from animal experiments that the size differences in the hypothalamic region he had studied arose before birth, perhaps in response to differences in the circulating level of sex hormones. Both his finding and Dr. Savic's suggest that the hypothalamus is specifically organized in relation to sexual orientation, he said.

Some researchers believe there is likely to be a genetic component of homosexuality because of its concordance among twins. The occurrence of male homosexuality in both members of a twin pair is 22 percent in nonidentical twins but rises to 52 percent in identical twins."

I can see that, yes, theoretically, they might be able to clear this up but they haven't yet.

By the way, thanks for discussing this in a relatively civil way today.

January 12, 2006 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One suggestion for the whole gang (Cilly, Dana, Theresa et al). This discussion has really diverged from the original topic anyway. Maybe to keep Jim's blog from crashing, we should move the conversation over to the comment section of today's post about blogger problems.

January 12, 2006 12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Still, as I have pointed out, that has nothing to do with orientation being biologically determined and not a choice. Once desires are not driven by choice, one's actions are."

Dana, if you mean fleeting desire, you're right. But humans have a will. Fleeting desires can be resisted or indulged. In that sense, you have a choice.

"I could have had relationships with men, my preference, pre-transiton, but I did not, because I did not see myself as a gay man and I wasn't morally prepared to enter into those relationships secretly, just for my pleasure. My orientation was hard-wired, my actions were not."

For the millionth time, we're talking about male homosexuals not transexuals.

"Your crowd, however, is very comfortable with having gay men act heterosexually and lie to their female partners about this. You call that moral?"

To begin with, there is no male that can perform sexually without desire. If a man has made a choice to honor a monogamous marital relationship and resist immoral feelings, I'd say, yes, he is acting in a morally upright manner. Are you suggesting that resisting temptation is dishonest? That we are morally obligated to act on inappropriate, lustful feelings?

January 12, 2006 1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"To begin with, there is no male that can perform sexually without desire."

Ever heard of male rape by females?

This is why you belong in that third group. No logical thinking....

January 12, 2006 2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ever heard of male rape by females?"

No. Where can I read up on it?

January 12, 2006 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Men have been known to get erections and ejaculate when being put into very uncomfortable positions"

Those poor guys.

"By my definition, humna society is quite capable of structuring itself so that it can make room for, and celebrate, loving same-sex relationships. I don't believe anybody suffers from that."

Well, it's not what God wants so it will produce suffering by being out of synch with his plan for cration. I know you're not at peace with that but at least we've got some agreement on the science stuff and on what's possible. Until the next bickerfest, adieu.

January 12, 2006 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"Well, it's not what God wants so it will produce suffering by being out of synch with his plan for cration. I know you're not at peace with that but at least we've got some agreement on the science stuff and on what's possible. Until the next bickerfest, adieu."



Who agreed on science with you? What is cration? God's plan...my word that is not allowed in schools...or do you think it is?

January 12, 2006 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"God's plan...my word that is not allowed in schools...or do you think it is?"

I think God's plan can be discussed everywhere but, no, I wasn't referring to schools at that point. We were discussing of how "humna society is capable of structuring itself".

The problem is despite your denials, you're not being honest. While using the public schools as part of your agenda, your real aim is to remove all discussion of God from public life.

January 12, 2006 3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Who agreed on science with you?"

Haven't you and Cilly conceded that the pherenome study's author's stated that choice was a possible explanation for the data resulting from their tests? Or is there still some dispute on your side?

January 12, 2006 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What is cration?"

It's an old SAT trick:

cration is to creation as humna is to human

January 12, 2006 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This God and any other God has no place in the public square, except in how it affects each individual's morality."

Sorry, Dana. This is the basis of persecution from ages past. We have a right to proclaim our religious beliefs wherever we are. Just like you do.

BTW, mind if I quote you on the above.

"I don't believe this God has a plan for humans,"

yes, I've noticed that

"and I believe that it is humans who have to work this out for themselves (which is also my religious tradition, btw)."

OK if I call you a secular humanist then?

"But you have your beliefs and I have mine. I am not debating on the basis of mine, nor do I care to hear yours."

You argue on the basis of your secular humanism constantly. Here's a sample:

"Fundamentally morality is a social contract, based on humans' willingness to abide by certain rules in their social relations. I know you don't agree, and I expect we will never agree on that point. By my definition, humna society is quite capable of structuring itself so that it can make room for, and celebrate, loving same-sex relationships. I don't believe anybody suffers from that."

"We will continue to go nowhere on that basis. So why don't we just drop it, and simply respect each other's traditions?"

Actually, I don't think you telling me, essentially, to shut up is an instance of simple respect.

January 12, 2006 4:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

"The problem is despite your denials, you're not being honest. While using the public schools as part of your agenda, your real aim is to remove all discussion of God from public life. "


Wrong anonymous..God can be in public in whichever person who believes in God and his magnitude. The issue is God not being in subject matters in public schools where everyone including non believers are as well.

You would love nothing better than narrow scriptures being taught that God punishes and not accepts anyone outside your narrow interpretation about gays, lesbians, transexuals, etc., in public schools.

Well the issue of religion in public schools was settled long ago. It is not going to change.

Get with the program.

January 12, 2006 6:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""The problem is despite your denials, you're not being honest. While using the public schools as part of your agenda, your real aim is to remove all discussion of God from public life. "


Wrong anonymous..God can be in public in whichever person who believes in God and his magnitude. The issue is God not being in subject matters in public schools where everyone including non believers are as well."

Except Dana and I weren't discussing public school at the time. We were discussing the structure of society. Look back at the posts.

"You would love nothing better than narrow scriptures being taught that God punishes and not accepts anyone outside your narrow interpretation about gays, lesbians, transexuals, etc., in public schools."

You ought to get a little better informed before you spread misinformation.

"Well the issue of religion in public schools was settled long ago. It is not going to change."

Actually, 1963 wasn't that long ago. I was around then. Public schools have been in a state of decline almost from the moment the O'Hair case was issued. What will eventually happen is that the American public will understand that public schooling will never work and we'll go to a voucher system. I don't need to tell you which schools will survive.

"Get with the program."

Could you be more specific?

January 12, 2006 6:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous asked:

"Get with the program."

Could you be more specific?

______


Bigots will not rule the day program. Great program .....

January 12, 2006 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You choose to repeatedly misconstrue what I say. Yes, I am a secular humanist, not that I believe that phrase has any particular meaning."

Well, what I think it means is that you think man is sufficient to handle his problems without divine intervention and that conflict would disappear if all these, basically good, men simply understood each other better. Does that describe your view?

"I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state."

Well, you seem to think that state has the obligation to regulate where and when religious people can express their views. That's sounds like government involvement with religion. Kind of a "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy. Did the Nazis start by saying Jews should be seen and not heard? Seems to be your view of religious believers.

"I believe you and everyone else can believe or not in whichever or how many gods you choose, but you have no right to try to impose that on anyone else."

What do you mean by impose? You seem to think speech represents an imposition.

"Not in this country. I have no problem whatsoever with people who get their morality from their scriptures, just when they try to take control based on those scriptures, and when they use them to tell me how to live."

Who's done that? Don't liberals try to take control of the government based on their beliefs? If anything marks a modern liberal, it's the desire to tell others how to live.

"I've noticed that those who preach their scriptures rarely live up to its words."

Applies to every arena of human activity. Jefferson, who believed in liberty, holding slaves. Clinton, who believed in women's rights, taking advantage of a young girl. Nixon, who believed in democracy, trying to fix his political opponents. This is merely a description of the human condition. It supports the Christian view and casts doubt on humanism.

"It's funny, but I seem to recall Jesus taking his cue from Moses, being a humble man and walking humbly with his god. He fought against a powerful foe simply by setting an example. If you want to convert people to your cause, then do the same. Show us all how being a religious Christian makes you a better person, and then maybe you'll get some converts."

Actually, Jesus said "I will draw all men to me if I be lifted up." Converts will come from proclaiming the truth about him. They won't come from people wanting to be like me.

It's strange how people who aren't Christians have such a positive perception of Jesus. He said he was God. I agree. You apparently don't. If someone said they were God and I didn't believe them, I would think that person was a nut.

Moses was humble? I'd agree but not under your definition of humility. Setting an example is not exactly how he defeated the Pharoah. He relied on God, never failing to proclaim God's sovereignty over the non-believing Egyptians.

"You certainly have yet to do so on this blog."

Can't argue with you there.

"Personally, I believe this country is in far better shape today than it was fifty years ago, with the exception of the rapacious Republicans and their fundamentalist allies."

In what ways?

"You've made it clear that you do not, which is part and parcel of the fundamentalist disdain for all things "modern.""

Most of what you call "modern" is actually a return to pre-Christian paganism. Next stop, cave man.

January 13, 2006 9:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home