The CRC: Whining As a Way of Life
Hoo boy. The nuts are starting to climb the walls again.
Here's a little story from your favorite Religious Right web site:
That statement about "blocking implementation" would be true if the writer had put the words "for ten days" in it somewhere. But ... why worry over something like that? (And was there anything about health risks posed by condom use? No, I don't think so.)
OK, good, so they're not going to sue again. Good news.
But wait:
I'm dying to say something here, but will let her finish her comments first...
Ah, so they do want to go back to court.
I am curious about this GLSEN statement. If anyone reading this blog should happen to be associated with GLSEN, will you please say something in the comments about this? Are you lobbying the school district for something? What's this about?
OK, I'm joking. This is a lie, GLSEN hasn't said anything about this.
Listen, here's the deal with the anal and oral sex. I actually think she's talking about something I've said.
Teach the Facts wants the school district to promote abstinence among teens. But listen, here's the definition they're giving students in the first draft of the curriculum:
That's it. You're going to tell teenagers over and over again to practice abstinence, but you're not really going to tell them what it is.
We want the school district to use good, reliable information, from government information sources. The definition I submitted for consideration comes from a government web site that our group actually protested when it first came out, 4parents.gov. They define it this way:
See what I mean? The Bush administration gets it. You have to tell teens what not to do. Don't just tell them not to do anything, because ... they won't do that. They will hold hands. They'll kiss. They'll make out. They'll start touching each other. And you haven't told them where to stop. They don't know.
You have to tell them what not to do.
Teach the Facts wants the school district to use definitions that are given on important government web sites, sex-ed sites that give necessary information about, for instance, how to use condoms.
Like, here's what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say about using a condom for anal sex to avoid AIDS/HIV:
That's OK for the government to put on the Internet, isn't it? What harm has been done?
Or, here's another one. Here's what the Food and Drug Administration says:
See? They're not afraid to say it. It ain't pretty, but there is no benefit in beating around the bush.
There is no government web site that says "homosexual behavior is risky," which is the CRC's preferred wording. Homosexual behavior is not the problem, the problem for men who have sex with men is, as the CDC says:
There are three good reasons to use the term "anal sex" in a class. Let me run through them.
First. There is an AIDS epidemic underway. Our gay citizens are being infected at dangerous rates, and blacks are being targeted at rates many times higher than other demographic groups. The most common mode of spreading the infection, at least in the United States, is through anal sex between men. Even given the most conservative estimates, there is greater than a 50 percent chance that every classroom has at least one gay student in it. They need to be told the risk. They're not going to stop being gay, they need to know what to do in order to avoid catching this lethal disease.
Second. As this survey, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shows:
In other words, anal sex is an overwhelmingly heterosexual activity. More than a third, nearly half, of people are doing it. They need to know what to do to protect themselves.
Third. As the Journal of Adolescent Health reported last year (as relayed in the Washington Post:
Kids think they are "technically virgins" if they have anal sex. So they're doing that, instead of the regular stuff.
I agree, the phrase is indelicate. It's rude. It's nasty. We don't want our kids thinking about it.
That's why we want to tell them what the risks are, clearly and explicitly.
When prudery clashes with common sense, I say, let's side with sense.
The article that I started with goes on a little further.
Pretty soon the committee will discuss the sexual orientation part of the curriculum. So far we haven't done that. You use a condom the same way whether you're straight or gay. You could say that it's a little funny to show a video of a guy putting a condom on a penis that's not his, but the CRC doesn't seem to mind that part of it -- though I think it is ironically a plus to them that there are no women in the video.
Ms. Turner is complaining about "homosexual acts" already, when nothing at all has been said about any homosexual acts. This is the condom part.
I'm sure she's got these Family Blah Blah "reporters" on speed-dial for when we get to the sexual orientation part of the curriculum. in the meantime, CRC is just trying to slime the school district and the community, like they did before.
Here's a little story from your favorite Religious Right web site:
(AgapePress) - A group that sued Maryland's largest school system over its controversial sex-education curriculum is applauding some proposed changes to the new curriculum and raising concerns about others.
Last year a federal judge issued an order blocking implementation of the Montgomery County, Maryland, sex-ed program. Michelle Turner is president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, one of the two groups that filed a successful lawsuit alleging the program denigrated conservative religious beliefs about homosexuality and contained misinformation about health risks posed by condom use. Maryland Countys SexEd Material Not Yet Out of the Woods
That statement about "blocking implementation" would be true if the writer had put the words "for ten days" in it somewhere. But ... why worry over something like that? (And was there anything about health risks posed by condom use? No, I don't think so.)
Turner shares that her group approves of Montgomery County's newly revised condom video. "We think that the school system has done a very good job in creating this new one," she says. "It's factual, it's direct, it's to the point, it's clinical, and it's given in a very mature manner."
OK, good, so they're not going to sue again. Good news.
But wait:
Turner says her group is committed to ensuring Montgomery County schools present accurate data from the Centers for Disease Control regarding sexually transmitted diseases and infections. That's one reason she says the new curriculum does not meet all of her group's expectations.
"We're running into some concerns with the written part of the curriculum," Turner adds. "There still seems to be an interest on the part of the school system to introduce anal and oral sex."
I'm dying to say something here, but will let her finish her comments first...
According to Turner, liberal groups are still pushing for condom-based, homosexuality-affirming sex-ed in the classroom. For example, groups like the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and "Teach the Facts" want the county's new sex-education program to include discussion of anal and oral sex, she says. But if the changes advocated by those two groups are adopted, the citizens group leader contends the district may be in violation of the terms of last year's court-ordered settlement.
Ah, so they do want to go back to court.
I am curious about this GLSEN statement. If anyone reading this blog should happen to be associated with GLSEN, will you please say something in the comments about this? Are you lobbying the school district for something? What's this about?
OK, I'm joking. This is a lie, GLSEN hasn't said anything about this.
Listen, here's the deal with the anal and oral sex. I actually think she's talking about something I've said.
Teach the Facts wants the school district to promote abstinence among teens. But listen, here's the definition they're giving students in the first draft of the curriculum:
Abstinence: "choosing not to participate in a specific activity; e.g., sexual activity, alcohol, tobacco, other drug use.
That's it. You're going to tell teenagers over and over again to practice abstinence, but you're not really going to tell them what it is.
We want the school district to use good, reliable information, from government information sources. The definition I submitted for consideration comes from a government web site that our group actually protested when it first came out, 4parents.gov. They define it this way:
For the purposes of this document, "abstinence" is defined as the avoidance of voluntary intimate sexual contact (oral, anal, genital, or intimate skin-to-skin).
The following activities are NOT consistent with true abstinence:
- Oral sex is often called a "safe" sexual practice. However, all sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted this way.
- Anal sex is a sexual activity that many believe they can engage in without causing pregnancy. However, this is one of the easiest ways of spreading STDs.
- Intimate skin-to-skin contact, through activities such as mutual masturbation, can spread disease.
See what I mean? The Bush administration gets it. You have to tell teens what not to do. Don't just tell them not to do anything, because ... they won't do that. They will hold hands. They'll kiss. They'll make out. They'll start touching each other. And you haven't told them where to stop. They don't know.
You have to tell them what not to do.
Teach the Facts wants the school district to use definitions that are given on important government web sites, sex-ed sites that give necessary information about, for instance, how to use condoms.
Like, here's what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say about using a condom for anal sex to avoid AIDS/HIV:
Not having (abstaining from) sex is the most effective way to avoid HIV. If people choose to have anal sex, they should use a latex condom. Most of the time, condoms work well. However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex. Thus, even with a condom, anal sex can be risky. A person should use generous amounts of water-based lubricant in addition to the condom to reduce the chances of the condom breaking. Can I get HIV from anal sex?
That's OK for the government to put on the Internet, isn't it? What harm has been done?
Or, here's another one. Here's what the Food and Drug Administration says:
A person who takes part in risky sexual behavior should always use a condom.
The highest risk comes from having intercourse -- vaginal, anal, or oral -- with a person who has a sexually transmitted disease. If you have sex with an infected person, you're taking a big chance. If you know your partner is infected, the best rule is to avoid intercourse (including oral sex). If you do decide to have sex with an infected partner, you should always be sure a condom is used from start to finish, every time. Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases . . . especially AIDS
See? They're not afraid to say it. It ain't pretty, but there is no benefit in beating around the bush.
There is no government web site that says "homosexual behavior is risky," which is the CRC's preferred wording. Homosexual behavior is not the problem, the problem for men who have sex with men is, as the CDC says:
...Not using a condom during anal sex with someone other than a main partner of known HIV serostatus ...HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men
There are three good reasons to use the term "anal sex" in a class. Let me run through them.
First. There is an AIDS epidemic underway. Our gay citizens are being infected at dangerous rates, and blacks are being targeted at rates many times higher than other demographic groups. The most common mode of spreading the infection, at least in the United States, is through anal sex between men. Even given the most conservative estimates, there is greater than a 50 percent chance that every classroom has at least one gay student in it. They need to be told the risk. They're not going to stop being gay, they need to know what to do in order to avoid catching this lethal disease.
Second. As this survey, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shows:
Among adults 25–44 years of age ... 40 percent of men and 35 percent of women have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner.
In other words, anal sex is an overwhelmingly heterosexual activity. More than a third, nearly half, of people are doing it. They need to know what to do to protect themselves.
Third. As the Journal of Adolescent Health reported last year (as relayed in the Washington Post:
Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities. Teen Pledges Barely Cut STD Rates, Study Says
Kids think they are "technically virgins" if they have anal sex. So they're doing that, instead of the regular stuff.
I agree, the phrase is indelicate. It's rude. It's nasty. We don't want our kids thinking about it.
That's why we want to tell them what the risks are, clearly and explicitly.
When prudery clashes with common sense, I say, let's side with sense.
The article that I started with goes on a little further.
"It all depends on whether or not they are introducing homosexuality and homosexual acts and the homosexual lifestyle without telling students that it is possible to leave the lifestyle -- and that there are agencies and organizations that can assist with that," she says.
The proposed changes to the curriculum must be approved by the county's citizens advisory committee, which includes two high school students.
Pretty soon the committee will discuss the sexual orientation part of the curriculum. So far we haven't done that. You use a condom the same way whether you're straight or gay. You could say that it's a little funny to show a video of a guy putting a condom on a penis that's not his, but the CRC doesn't seem to mind that part of it -- though I think it is ironically a plus to them that there are no women in the video.
Ms. Turner is complaining about "homosexual acts" already, when nothing at all has been said about any homosexual acts. This is the condom part.
I'm sure she's got these Family Blah Blah "reporters" on speed-dial for when we get to the sexual orientation part of the curriculum. in the meantime, CRC is just trying to slime the school district and the community, like they did before.
posted by JimK at 11:00 PM
90 Comments:
I realize after twisting the meaning of words, tolerance yada-yada groups don't like to think about any logical analyses but here's a conundrum for the local lunatic fringe group:
If, as you say:
1. Anal sex is largely a heterosexual behavior
2. AIDS is a gay epidemic
then, isn't it logical to conclude that random promiscuity is a regular feature of gay life?
and, therefore, that homosexual involvement is dangerous?
TTF: Exaggerating as a way of life
Teach that fiction!
"The most common mode of spreading the infection, at least in the United States, is through anal sex between men."
"anal sex is an overwhelmingly heterosexual activity. More than a third, nearly half, of people are doing it."
and, yet, nearly half of all people aren't developing AIDS
why?
anons talking to anons...funny!!!!!!
Even funnier: From Agape's website--"CAUTION: This story contains terms that some may find offensive "
Yep hearing oral sex and anal sex just might corrupt one's ears. Would that be more than doing those things without protection/condoms.
Anne
anon asked, (or pretended to ask)
If, as you say:
2. AIDS is a gay epidemic
*****
Jim actually said:
First. There is an AIDS epidemic underway. Our gay citizens are being infected at dangerous rates, and blacks are being targeted at rates many times higher than other demographic groups.
Gracie
"Jim actually said:"
Which is what I said he said.
"First. There is an AIDS epidemic underway. Our gay citizens are being infected at dangerous rates,"
The question is why. The answer is promiscuity.
"and blacks are being targeted at rates many times higher than other demographic groups."
I let this irresponsible remark slide by before but since you brought it up, what does this mean? Who is targeting blacks?
"anons talking to anons...funny!!!!!!"
Now that anne-onymous has joined in, it's really hilarious!!!!!
"Irresponsible?"
"Targeting?"
Anon, you have a bizarre way of seeing things. It's a disease, man, people getting sick. Who targets kids with chicken pox?
I mean, to clear this up, there is no scientific evidence that AIDS is God's way of punishing sinners.
JimK
"anons talking to anons...funny!!!!!!"
Just for the record, it wasn't me that said that.
Are you sure you can say oral and anal sex on the internet? Do you need a condon when you type the words?
Jim, The comments that you made on the condom curriculum, as you reported here, all seem to making a strong argument against anal sex (always risky) and a strong warning against oral sex (don't assume it is safe). If those are the resources that you have provided to the CA, than what Michelle Turner is complaining about is that you are asking to introduce language that specifically warns against anal sex and oral sex.
CRC doesn't want us to tell kids to abstain from something that is always risky? What's up with that?
Tish, you might conclude that CRC wants to be able to say they support abstinence, but don't want to actually do anything about it. They apparently just want to tell young people not to "do anything," and then complain about liberals when the kids don't follow their advice.
JimK
First of all, Theresa, you don't need to slime the discussion by bringing bestiality into it. I understand the CRC likes to lump decent gay folks with every ugly thing you can think of, but we're not doing that here, OK?
There are lots of reasons not to develop parallel curricula. First of all, we are told that only about one percent of students opt out of the current curriculum. And that's with the "opt-in" procedure, parents have to sign a permission slip for kids to attend. Ninety nine percent do that. You don't develop a special curriculum for one percent of the students.
Second of all, your suggestion assumes that sex-ed is an option, that kids don't really need this information. Most people don't feel that way. We are not just talking about our own kids here, there is a serious social problem in the US with pregnant teens and sexually transmitted infections. There's a real reason that kids learn math, history, spelling ... and health, including sex.
Finally, I personally would object to the school district pretending that a flat-earth type of "abstinence-only" class was equivalent to one that presented actual information. I think it makes sense to actually educate students in their classes. "Just don't do it" doesn't do that.
JimK
Theresa,
Studies of teens' sexual behavior show us that teens are figuring out for themselves that the human body has more than one orifice.
Given that they are already trying it on their own, how is it "twisted" to tell teens that anal sex is risky and that anal sex is not abstinence?
""Irresponsible?"
"Targeting?"
Anon, you have a bizarre way of seeing things. It's a disease, man, people getting sick. Who targets kids with chicken pox?
I mean, to clear this up, there is no scientific evidence that AIDS is God's way of punishing sinners."
Jim, have you totally lost your mind? "target" was the phrase you used. It's use was irresponsible. If this is a retraction, it's a strange one.
Anon, I said that "blacks are being targeted at rates many times higher than other demographic groups" by the AIDS epidemic.
Your nonsense question was "Who is targeting blacks?" As if somebody was doing this on purpose, as if there were an agency behind it.
There isn't. There are lots of factors, including, significantly, differential imprisonment rates.
JimK
"First of all, Theresa, you don't need to slime the discussion by bringing bestiality into it."
Jim, you've said, in order to teach abstinence, you need to teach what to abstain from. Where do you draw the line?
"I understand the CRC likes to lump decent gay folks with every ugly thing you can think of, but we're not doing that here, OK?"
No K. "Decent" is a value judgment. TTF is supposed to be about facts.
"There are lots of reasons not to develop parallel curricula. First of all, we are told that only about one percent of students opt out of the current curriculum. And that's with the "opt-in" procedure, parents have to sign a permission slip for kids to attend. Ninety nine percent do that."
Let's survey all the parents. They "opt in" because they think they're expected to. The schools actively try to persuade them to.
"You don't develop a special curriculum for one percent of the students."
More than one percent are not actively promiscuous and would be harmed by a program that implies premarital promiscuity is a societal norm.
"Second of all, your suggestion assumes that sex-ed is an option, that kids don't really need this information."
It's the focus and venue that are the issues. Teaching a valueless version has will continue to corrupt our society. The introduction of abstinence programs has coincided with a decline in associated social problems.
"Most people don't feel that way."
Any polls in MC available.
"We are not just talking about our own kids here, there is a serious social problem in the US with pregnant teens and sexually transmitted infections."
Well, it got really bad in the hey-day of valueless sex ed and has declined as abstinence programs have become more popular.
"There's a real reason that kids learn math, history, spelling ... and health, including sex."
They're taught how to do math right. Why shouldn't sex be the same?
"Finally, I personally would object to the school district pretending that a flat-earth type of "abstinence-only" class was equivalent to one that presented actual information."
Abstinence programs provide training in resisting temptation in a sexually obsessed culture. The fairy tale view advocated by TTF is disinformation.
"I think it makes sense to actually educate students in their classes. "Just don't do it" doesn't do that."
Educate them about the consequences of those who have made bad decisions. Abstinence doesn't just teach "don't do it"- they teach why not.
Theresa -- besides being awkward at explaining the details of sexuality to their children, most parents don't really have the knowledge necessary to teach them all they need to know in this crazy world. How many people can explain the symptoms of human papillomavirus? Who knows the difference between a ureter and a urethra? How many straight people ever gave a thought to gay people and their needs and how they should be treated? The schools provide a service to the community by informing students about what to expect in their own lives and also how to deal with people whose feelings they may not share.
You know that you are more conservative than the vast majority of the county's residents. The system is set up so that exceptional people such as yourself can keep their kids out of the class. I can understand that you would like something meaty to replace it, but there really isn't much of a call for an entire alternative curriculum.
The kind of thing you are talking about, coaching young people in techniques for saying no, sounds to me like it is definitely a thing that parents can and should do. I have seen my teens go through their various romantic crises, and they come to us for both hugs and advice. They don't tell us everything (they even tell us they don't tell us everything!), but we are able to establish some principles and guide them along. It's a family thing.
I think it is difficult, but not impossible, to draw the line between these domains. That's fine, it's hard but we're all grown-ups here, we can do it. But when you have your CRC president hinting darkly that the legal settlement is being violated if the schools teach tenth-graders what to abstain from, then the whole process is disrupted. You have a rep on the committee, if you guys want to prep her with the "official" poisition, then do so and send her in, the committee will listen to her. Same with PFOX, that's two voices you should be able to control. Don't forget, it was CRC's lawyers who set up this process, you guys can at least show the civility to follow it.
JimK
Jim said, blacks are being targeted at rates many times higher than other demographic groups" by the AIDS epidemic.
The CDC agrees.
STATISTICS
HIV/AIDS in 2004
-According to the 2000 census, African Americans make up 12.3% of the US population. However, African Americans accounted for 19,206 (50%) of the estimated 38,730 new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the United States in the 35 areas with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting [2].*
-During 2001–2004, the rate of HIV/AIDS diagnoses for African Americans decreased, although the rate for African Americans was still the highest rate for all racial and ethnic groups [3].
-The primary mode of HIV transmission among African American men was sexual contact with other men, followed by heterosexual contact and injection drug use [2].
-The primary mode of HIV transmission among African American women was heterosexual contact, followed by injection drug use [2].
-Of the estimated 145 infants perinatally infected with HIV, 105 (73%) were African American (CDC, HIV/AIDS Reporting System, unpublished data, June 2005).
-Of the estimated 18,849 people under the age of 25 whose diagnosis of HIV/AIDS was made during 2001–2004 in the 33 states with HIV reporting, 11,554 (61%) were African American [4].
-Of the estimated 80,187 African Americans whose diagnosis of HIV/AIDS was made during 2001–2004 in the 33 states with HIV reporting, 49,704 (62%) were males, and 30,483 (38%) were females [4].
AIDS in 2004
-African Americans accounted for 20,965 (49%) of the 42,514 estimated AIDS cases diagnosed in the United States (including US dependencies, possessions, and associated nations) [2].
-The rate of AIDS diagnoses for African American adults and adolescents was 10 times the rate for whites and almost 3 times the rate for Hispanics. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for African American women was 23 times the rate for white women. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for African
-American men was 8 times the rate for white men [2].
-The 178,233 African Americans living with AIDS in the United States accounted for 43% of all people in the United States living with AIDS [2].
-Of the 48 US children (younger than 13 years of age) who had a new AIDS diagnosis, 29 were African American [2].
-Since the beginning of the epidemic, African Americans have accounted for 379,278 (40%) of the estimated 944,306 AIDS cases diagnosed [2].
-From the beginning of the epidemic through December 2004, an estimated 201,045 African Americans with AIDS died [2].
-Of persons whose diagnosis of AIDS had been made since 1996, a smaller proportion of African Americans (64%) were alive after 9 years compared with American Indians and Alaska Natives (65%), Hispanics (72%), whites (74%), and Asians and Pacific Islanders (81%) [2].
There is much more information about how the HIV/AIDS epidemic is targeting African Americans at this CDC site:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
Christine
"-The rate of AIDS diagnoses for African American adults and adolescents was 10 times the rate for whites and almost 3 times the rate for Hispanics. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for African American women was 23 times the rate for white women. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for African
-American men was 8 times the rate for white men [2]. "
Please pardon the extra "-" typo. This is actually a single item:
-The rate of AIDS diagnoses for African American adults and adolescents was 10 times the rate for whites and almost 3 times the rate for Hispanics. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for African American women was 23 times the rate for white women. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for African American men was 8 times the rate for white men [2].
Christine
This is not rocket science. There is a difference between giving good sound information to combat STDs and stigmatizing a population of people.
Gays and lesbians can prevent STDs in their community if they are made privy to good sound information, just like heterosexuals.
CRC seems to be intent on denigrating the gay community more than the act of not being careful when one is having sex.
sorry
screwed up the last sentence. I meant to say:
CRC seems to be intent on denigrating the gay community more than educating people on good and safe sexual behavior
"but there really isn't much of a call for an entire alternative curriculum"
there really wasn't any call, among parents, for either the Fishback revisions or the revisions currently being concocted
cilly
It's common knowledge that blacks are infected by the AIDS virus at a higher rate than other races. My only objection was Jim's use of the term "target". It implied someone or something had purposely done this. Although the wording was ill-chosen, he, at least, clarified that he didn't mean that. All well and good.
Left unadressed by TTF today is the problem posed by using the data Jim included in this post. If anal sex is as common in heteros as homos, why is AIDS so disproportionately prevalent in the gay community. Indeed, this plague entered our country through the gay community.
The obvious answer is the significantly higher incidence of random promiscuity. This fact must be disclosed as part of the health curriculum being devised. If kids with gay impulses are emboldened to seek homosexual relationships by the curriculum, they need to know the danger they'll face. If they are tricked into thinking gay behavior is normal and pursue it, they need to know the considerable risk they are taking. It's a matter of life and death.
"CRC seems to be intent on denigrating the gay community more than the act of not being careful when one is having sex."
Nah, CRC wants MCPS out of the business of changing community values. The schools should not denigrate or encourage but simply tell the truth. If that denigrates, let the chips of truth fall where they may.
anonymous, you really arent making any sense.
Anal sex is not "gay behavior." You see that is where the lies and the denigration begins.
I mean what are u saying? Lesbians arent gay because they dont have anal sex? A man and a woman who engage in anal sex are gay? Sex acts are not a correct way to descrbe a group of people. Sexual orientation is dependent on which gender you have sexual behavior with, not by the acts of sex you engage in.
To say that a child who realizes that he is gay will automatically engage in anal sex continues the denigration. Realizing sexual orientation does not necessarily create a desire to engage in sexual intercourse.
"Community values?" That is a problematic term that changes depending on who in the community you talk to. And MCPS has a right to express their values too.
And furthermore, to denigrate an entire group of people is not spreading truth. I have read CRC's literature and it is full of discredited research and cherry picked studies.
CRC seems to be a part of a huge group of people willing to quantify their religious beliefs about homosexuality with lies, bad studies and cherry picked research.
I don't think this organization has any handle on the truth.
If you want to find further proof of what I am talking about, i invite you to come to my blog, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
anonymous, you really arent making any sense.
Anal sex is not "gay behavior." You see that is where the lies and the denigration begins.
I mean what are u saying? Lesbians arent gay because they dont have anal sex? A man and a woman who engage in anal sex are gay? Sex acts are not a correct way to descrbe a group of people. Sexual orientation is dependent on which gender you have sexual behavior with, not by the acts of sex you engage in.
To say that a child who realizes that he is gay will automatically engage in anal sex continues the denigration. Realizing sexual orientation does not necessarily create a desire to engage in sexual intercourse.
"Community values?" That is a problematic term that changes depending on who in the community you talk to. And MCPS has a right to express their values too.
And furthermore, to denigrate an entire group of people is not spreading truth. I have read CRC's literature and it is full of discredited research and cherry picked studies.
CRC seems to be a part of a huge group of people willing to quantify their religious beliefs about homosexuality with lies, bad studies and cherry picked research.
I don't think this organization has any handle on the truth.
If you want to find further proof of what I am talking about, i invite you to come to my blog, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
anon said, The obvious answer is the significantly higher incidence of random promiscuity.
*****************
And if gays are randy all over the place would it not be better to have them practicing safe sex??
So if gays are monogamous....then no need for education on safe sex?
Anne
sorry for posting that twice. this blog was acting strange.
Anonymous said, quoting JimK....
"but there really isn't much of a call for an entire alternative curriculum"
there really wasn't any call, among parents, for either the Fishback revisions or the revisions currently being concocted
********************
Much of what Anon says isn’t worth responding to, but let’s look at the record:
1. In November 2002, the Board of Education, with only one dissenting vote, voted to instruct MCPS to revise the 8th and 10th grade health education curriculum to include information on sexual orientation. The materials presented to the Board by the MCPS staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee made it very clear that the intention was to include factual information, which would have the effect of lessening demonization of gay students. This was reported in the local press, and there was no public outcry against it.
2. In November 2004, the Board of Education unanimously approved for piloting revisions developed by MCPS staff and reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Committee. There was some controversy in the local media, but the calls, letters, and e-mails to the Board ran overwhelmingly in favor of the revisions. In an era where people usually only contact government officials when they are opposed to what the officials have done, this was quite extraordinary. The opposition came largely from people who had already chosen to opt-out of the public schools (like CRC Spokesman Steve Fisher) or who had never permitted their children to take the units on Family Life and Human Sexuality (like CRC President Michelle Turner) – the latter being around 1% of the MCPS population.
3. In the Spring of 2005, parents in the six pilot schools were presented with the revisions and, as is always the case, given the option of whether to permit their children to take the unit. Nearly all the students in the target classes received parental permission.
4. For all of CRC’s bluster, no one from CRC or related organizations chose to put themselves before the voters in the Board of Education election this year. I suspect that is because they knew they would have so little support in the community. In contrast, the leading candidates (based on the results of the September primary and endorsements from broad-based community groups) are supporters of continuing along the path chosen by our democratically elected Board in 2002 and reaffirmed in 2004.
anonymous
if everyone (gay or straight) was monogamous, there would be no reason for edcuation on safe sex.
"anonymous, you really arent making any sense.
Anal sex is not "gay behavior." You see that is where the lies and the denigration begins."
Anne
Sorry if you don't understand. I'm not saying anal sex is exclusively gay. I'm pointing out that gays, participating in the same types of sex acts, get AIDS at a much higher rate. It's because of widespread random promiscuity.
"To say that a child who realizes that he is gay will automatically engage in anal sex continues the denigration."
Well, whether that's true or not, I didn't say that. I said, in eventually finding a sexual partner, they will likely be involved with someone who has had a high number of partners, incrasing their exposure to deadly disease. This is no doubt true since David is now resorting to "not-worth-addressing" rhetoric.
"Realizing sexual orientation does not necessarily create a desire to engage in sexual intercourse."
Oh brother!
""Community values?" That is a problematic term that changes depending on who in the community you talk to. And MCPS has a right to express their values too."
Actually, they don't. They don't have, as an organization, any rights. They have an obligation to serve their constituents.
"And furthermore, to denigrate an entire group of people is not spreading truth. I have read CRC's literature and it is full of discredited research and cherry picked studies."
You'd have to be more specific but, remember, nothing TTF says concerning sexual preference is supported by scientific research.
"CRC seems to be a part of a huge group of people"
Teach the Fiction always claims CRC is a small group of people. You must have missed that briefing.
"willing to quantify their religious beliefs about homosexuality"
A classic TTF fallacy that if religion supports a moral principle then that principle must be religious. Societies from every religious viewpoint, including Marxist atheism have considered homosexuality immoral.
"with lies, bad studies and cherry picked research.""
Are the cherry picked studies lies too? Funny how "lie" and "hate" are the two most commonly used words in the liberal repertoire these days.
"I don't think this organization has any handle on the truth."
Whew! Glad you cleared that up.
"If you want to find further proof of what I am talking about, i invite you to come to my blog, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters"
Keep your blogs to yourself.
David said, 4. For all of CRC’s bluster, no one from CRC or related organizations chose to put themselves before the voters in the Board of Education election this year.
___
But Bunny from WCTU was hopping all around for CRC at polls handing out CRC related items.
Interesting enough that helped CRC not much.
Anne
David
If you think the MCPS board reflects popular opinion you're mistaken. It's true that no uprising has occurred but Jim was claiming there was some call among parents for the new curriculum. There wasn't. People don't pay that much attention and last they heard, CRC, with popular support, had prevailed.
The teacher union controls the elections, for various reasons. Some of your friends here can tell you that.
anon said, The teacher union controls the elections, for various reasons.
___
Since teachers initiated a call for sex ed revisions then teachers union will be great.
Gracie
anon said, Keep your blogs to yourself.
****
Ahem...you are already on a blog 24/7 apparently from your TTF postings here day in and day out.
Admit it anon you went and peeked at the other blog.
Gracie
"Since teachers initiated a call for sex ed revisions then teachers union will be great."
Exactly. It was teachers not parents pushing for this.
Anon. Whats your point? Is there supposed to be something wrong with teachers asking for improvements to a curriculum?
You asked me to be more specific about CRC, so I will.
No doubt, you will attempt to shoot me down with ad hominem attacks but I think this should be posted for record:
This is from a report I created on CRC a while back:
CRC claims that its opponents engage in propaganda. But a quick look at the CRC’s resources on its webpage, clearly shows that the CRC is guilty of the crime they have accused Teach the Facts. Several of their “resources” are just propaganda pieces filled with distortions and lies:
A. 15 Good Reasons to Oppose ‘Sexual Orientation’ (Homosexuality) Codes in Schools.
This piece, linked from the CRC webpage is from Peter LaBarbera from Concerned Women for America. Even the title is a distortion. No school operates a “sexual orientation” code. I am not even certain that this phrase even exists. From the onset, it is plainly seen that LaBarbera is engaging in propaganda and fear tactics. This is further demonstrated when one reads the piece. His first point is a distortion:
“Homosexual behavior is wrong (and illegal in some states) . . .”
The first problem with this is that LaBarbera has not established what exactly is “homosexual behavior.” Secondly, he is incorrect about the legality of it. Clearly LaBarbera is leading the reader to think that “homosexual behavior” is a description involving solely sexual behavior. His piece was written in 2002 (before Lawrence vs. Texas) made sodomy laws illegal. But even if somehow Lawrence vs. Texas had ruled the other way, his assertion of homosexual behavior being illegal is incorrect. Most of the sodomy laws had to do with sexual acts, heterosexual or homosexual, and not whom the acts were being committed with
LaBabera continues his distortions with point two:
“Homosexual actions are unhealthy - especially for males. Like smoking, alcohol, and drug abuse, they should be discouraged. Dangerous behavior that shortens a person’s life should never be promoted to impressionable students.”
Again, LaBarbera does not give a description of what exactly are “homosexual actions,” leading the reader to think that “homosexual actions” can only be defined by sexual behavior rather than orientation. Also, his second point regarding “homosexual actions” shortening a person’s lifespan is an out and out distortion. No legitimate researcher has ever said that homosexuality shortens someone’s lifespan. The Centers for Disease Control has gone on record saying that they have never conducted studies saying that homosexuality “shortens” someone’s lifespan.
The only two sources LaBarbera and his groups can cite comes from a distorted Oxford study (talked about further in the next section) and a discredited researcher by the name of Paul Cameron. Among other things, Cameron had his membership in the American Psychological Association taken away because he was found guilty of distorting the work of other researchers.
B. The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools
The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools, also linked from CRC's website, contains several factual errors and distortions. Page three contains this passage:
“Oxford University’s International Journal of Epidemiology indicates that gay and bisexual men involved in same-sex activity risk cutting years off their lives. One study showed:In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”
But that passage is a distortion.
In 2001, researchers Robert S Hogg, Stefan A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V. O'Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T Schechter wrote a letter to the editor in the International Journal of Epidemiology (http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499) in which they said that any use of their research to prove that homosexuals have a shorter lifespan is incorrect and improper.
The six researchers also had this little tidbit to say in regards to death and life spans:
"Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or
she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or
social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for
legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables
that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the
construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the
appropriate ones to be used."
Now this only scratches the surface of the distortions of CRC. Like I said before, no doubt you will engage in ad hominem attack or accuse me of being having credibility due to my orientation but if you look at my sources, you will see that I am correct. and for the record, I am Alvin McEwen, not Anne.
"Anon. Whats your point? Is there supposed to be something wrong with teachers asking for improvements to a curriculum?"
The point is that Jim was trying to make the case that parents wanted a revised curriculum. I don't think they did- they've just come to believe that, here in Montgomery County, you can't fight the power of the teachers' union.
"and for the record, I am Alvin McEwen, not Anne."
Sorry, Alvin, my mistake. Looking back, I don't know why I thought you were Ann.
I'm going to take a couple of days off but will try to read your post this weekend and respond.
"Admit it anon you went and peeked at the other blog."
Kay,
Actually, I didn't. I think I will now though.
anon said Exactly. It was teachers not parents pushing for this.
**
Teachers are parents as well.
Gracie
A. McEwen said... Now this only scratches the surface of the distortions of CRC.
Yeah buddy...the list grows every day. CRC can hardly keep up with the lie pile they have created. They are itching to sue the suers they are.
Zip
anon said The point is that Jim was trying to make the case that parents wanted a revised curriculum.
Well that would be true as parents, teachers, and community in majority backed a new revised curriculum. Now they are backing the work on the revisions going on now in order to get a factual curriculum in place and one not full of fantasies on "ex gays" who do not exist.
Anne
anon: Sorry, Alvin, my mistake. Looking back, I don't know why I thought you were Ann.
Because anon you thought that as a village idiot would. With your time away from this blog are you going to inhabit another's blog as the village idiot there? One can hope.
Ted
"Because anon you thought that as a village idiot would. With your time away from this blog are you going to inhabit another's blog as the village idiot there? One can hope."
Ted
You must be the village mute. Since you've found your voice, how about your take on a few of the questions circulating through here this week:
1. Why did AIDS appear first in the gay community and why does it continue to be disproportionately present there?
2. If because of the high incidence of random promiscuity, should this fact be presented in high school health class?
3. Is there any evidence supporting TTF's contention that the Fishback revisions were a response to a call from a significant group of parents?
4. If virtually every society, even those that were officially atheist, has considered homosexuality immoral, why does TTF claim that only religious people consider it so?
"Rosie To O: Admit It, Already!
Posted Sep 20th 2006 12:41PM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: TV, Oprah, Celebrity Feuds
Rosie O'Donnell trained her gaydar on Oprah Winfrey and her BFF Gayle King on "The View," saying that the talk-show queen and her BFF Gayle King are, despite their protestations to the contrary and despite their not being full-blown lovers, "a tiny bit gay." As the denizens of "The View" mused about Oprah and Gayle's cross-country trip, as chronicled on Oprah's season premiere Monday, Rosie turned her attention to the pair. Her assessment? "You might be a little bit gay, you're just not doin' it," she said of O and G, explaining that an absence of sex wouldn't preclude the pair from sharing in a certain sapphic satisfaction.
Whether or not she's pushing Oprah and Gayle towards an admission, Rosie also said that she thinks everyone could be "a tiny bit gay.""
Does this mean everyone makes a CHOICE concerning what "bit" to go with?
Anon, AIDS only targets gays in America and Western Europe. I'm not expert, but I assume that's because it was introduced by a promiscuous gay flight attendant who infected many people before the virus was detected, and also because the virus infects more efficiently through the rectal lining than through the vagina, increasing the probability of passing the disease.
You do know that the vast majority of HIV patients are not gay. Right?
According to you, I seem to have said that "the Fishback revisions were a response to a call from a significant group of parents." Since this seems to be such an important point to you, could you please refresh us on where I said that? I don't mind explaining myself, but really dont' want to get stuck trying to explain what you said I said, especially if I didn't say it.
And while you're at it, please show us where we said that only religious people consider homosexuality immoral. Personally, I would expect ignorant people, whether religious or not, to fear and judge something they can't understand. But if somebody here has said "only religous people" consider it immoral, please enlighten the coversation by sharing your source with us.
I am not calling you a liar, you notice, I'm just asking you to please back up your statements. A hypertext link or two would do.
JimK
Does this mean everyone makes a CHOICE concerning what "bit" to go with?
Anon, since you consider Rosie O'Donnell an expert, then the answer, at least for you, must be "yes."
JimK
Anon,
Your worldview appear to be premised on the proposition that gay men are inherently infinitely more promiscuous than straight men, and that there is nothing anyone can do about it. (Incidentally, the spread of AIDs in Africa is principally a heterosexual phenomenon).
The health ed curriculum teaches (and hopefully will teach even more comprehensively) that all promiscuity carries great risks.
So the atheist Soviet Union viewed homosexuality as immoral. The USSR was premised on tight state control of everything, and used old prejudices as part of their arsenal of weapons to maintain that control.
The initial push for the curriculum revisions came from the health teachers. This is not a homophobic community, as the election returns have confirmed. If this had been a hot-button issue for lots of MCPS parents, we would have seen different election candidates and outcomes. That is what democracy is about.
"Anon, AIDS only targets gays in America and Western Europe. I'm not expert, but I assume that's because it was introduced by a promiscuous gay flight attendant who infected many people before the virus was detected,"
I assume you're joking. If not, are you saying gay stewards are more promiscuous than normal ones.
"and also because the virus infects more efficiently through the rectal lining than through the vagina, increasing the probability of passing the disease."
I thought you said anal sex was primarily hetero. Glad you recognize it's more dangerous and more common among gays, making gay sex usually more dangerous.
"You do know that the vast majority of HIV patients are not gay. Right?"
No- and I still don't. I do know that the percentage of new exposures that are the result male-to-male sexual activity is multiple times higher than that caused by hetero sex. Granted, intravenous drug use is also quite dangerous and probably most of them are straight. I think at 2002, as I recall, gay sex accounted for 5/6 of all cases transmitted sexually.
I guess there's a remote possibility that it's initial introduction in the gay community was simply chance but for the pattern to persist after all these years, the cause is obviously the behavior of the gay community.
"According to you, I seem to have said that "the Fishback revisions were a response to a call from a significant group of parents." Since this seems to be such an important point to you, could you please refresh us on where I said that? I don't mind explaining myself, but really dont' want to get stuck trying to explain what you said I said, especially if I didn't say it."
You've said it many times and whenever I disgagree, your peeps here go ballistic. You and David today seem to agree that health teachers were the ones who introduced it so fine.
"And while you're at it, please show us where we said that only religious people consider homosexuality immoral."
You've said we can't teach it because it would be introducing religion in public schools. If you're now saying you don't think that anymore, fine with me.
"Personally, I would expect ignorant people, whether religious or not, to fear and judge something they can't understand."
What do you think people don't understand?
"I am not calling you a liar, you notice, I'm just asking you to please back up your statements. A hypertext link or two would do."
I'm not calling you a liar either, Jim. I just think you say so many irrational things, you start to lose track of them. Innocent mistake. Maybe we'll get a Noble Peace Prize or something.
anonymouse said-Maybe we'll get a Noble Peace Prize or something.
yes for putting up with you and your nonsense Wyatt
"Your worldview appear to be premised on the proposition that gay men are inherently infinitely more promiscuous than straight men,"
Not really. My worldview does define gaiety as sinful but the number of partners in crime is not an integral notion. Gays with exclusive partners could theoretically fit very comfortably in my worldview.
"and that there is nothing anyone can do about it."
So you think this is what MCPS should be doing? Creating a safe gay world?
"(Incidentally, the spread of AIDs in Africa is principally a heterosexual phenomenon)."
Gay behavior is strongly discouraged in Africa, making promiscuity difficult if not close to impossible. Rampant prostitution, however, is widely tolerated, thus the distribution of exposure cases there. The implications are obvious.
"The health ed curriculum teaches (and hopefully will teach even more comprehensively) that all promiscuity carries great risks."
Yes, but does it where it is common. One one have elevated risk even if one is monogamous- if one's likley partners have not been.
"So the atheist Soviet Union viewed homosexuality as immoral. The USSR was premised on tight state control of everything, and used old prejudices as part of their arsenal of weapons to maintain that control."
As you can, I'm sure, surmise, I don't feel any warm nostalgia for the Marxist regimes that once were common worldwide. I brought up this extreme simply to demonstrate that sexual morality is not religious in nature. That being the case, there should be no prohibition against teaching it in public schools.
"The initial push for the curriculum revisions came from the health teachers."
Thank you. I heard them pushing it myself. Their argument seem to center primarily on how backward Montgomery County was compared with everyone else in the country. (Sounds like they got a spiel at some teachers' convention.) They also claimed that the county had no condom demonstration video but TTF later unearthed one (apparently out of use- and out of mind.)
"This is not a homophobic community, as the election returns have confirmed."
The electorate, based on media reports, had assumed pro-family groups had prevailed. Believing in traditional morality is hardly a "phobia". Not rhetorical touch though.
"If this had been a hot-button issue for lots of MCPS parents, we would have seen different election candidates and outcomes."
This whole thing is always up in the air and out of focus whenever elections roll around. The school board clearly designs it that way. People don't worry too much about school board election- partly, because there is little media coverage of them. That's why the teacher unions prevail. We'll see what the reaction is if the CAC comes out with another gay agenda curriculum.
"That is what democracy is about."
This democracy would more accurately reflect the views of the county if there was a recall mechanism. As it is, the elections are easily manipulated by the incumbents.
Anon, if this were a private conversation I would not continue with it.
If not, are you saying gay stewards are more promiscuous than normal ones.
No. That's absurd, I said nothing remotely similar to that. I was referring to one person, Gaëtan Dugas.
When you say things like Glad you recognize it's more dangerous and more common among gays, making gay sex usually more dangerous. you misrepresent my statements so badly that it is beyond offensive.
percentage of new exposures that are the result male-to-male sexual activity
Look it up. Even in the US, only about half of new HIV cases are men having sex with men. In other parts of the world, where the epidemic is extremely bad, men-with-men make up a negligible percentage of cases.. How can you discuss this topic and not know that?
gay sex accounted for 5/6 of all cases transmitted sexually
According to THIS GOVERNMENT SITE, men having sex with men accounted for 51 percent of new US HIV cases in 2004. It disproportionate, but nowhere close to your crap. And in the African epidemic, homosexual contact is not a major factor.
Re parents requesting the changes: You've said it many times and whenever I disgagree, your peeps here go ballistic.
You're simply lying again. What do you get out of that? It's incomprehensible to me. It's a ridiculous point you make, and it's a lie.
"And while you're at it, please show us where we said that only religious people consider homosexuality immoral."
You've said we can't teach it because it would be introducing religion in public schools. If you're now saying you don't think that anymore, fine with me.
Do you think this is some kind of joke? The "ex-gay" ministries are religious and do not belong in the schools. No one has ever said that only religious people consider homosexuality immoral.
You lie again, and I'm getting tired of it.
"Personally, I would expect ignorant people, whether religious or not, to fear and judge something they can't understand."
What do you think people don't understand?
I'm sorry, but I don't have time to answer that one.
I said I am not calling you a liar, you notice, I'm ...
I changed my mind. You're a liar.
JimK
"percentage of new exposures that are the result male-to-male sexual activity
Look it up. Even in the US, only about half of new HIV cases are men having sex with men. In other parts of the world, where the epidemic is extremely bad, men-with-men make up a negligible percentage of cases.. How can you discuss this topic and not know that?"
Jim, I was speaking of 2002, when 58% of new infections resulted from male-to-male contact and 11% of new infections result from normal sexual activity. That's roughly 5/6. In the report you linked, of those living with AIDS in 2004, 65% were infected by gay male contact and 16% from normal sexual activity. That's a little less than 5/6 but only negligible.
I think your confusion was that you didn't notice my denominator was infections as a result of sexual activity not all infections.
"gay sex accounted for 5/6 of all cases transmitted sexually
According to THIS GOVERNMENT SITE, men having sex with men accounted for 51 percent of new US HIV cases in 2004. It disproportionate, but nowhere close to your crap."
It's actually pretty close to my crap.
"And in the African epidemic, homosexual contact is not a major factor."
That's because homosexuality is taboo there and not thriving in the open as it is here, making random and anonymous promiscuity extremely difficult to engage in.
The report you linked had some very interesting theories as to the disproportionality of gay infections. One was that use of the internet has greatly increased the opportunity and incidence of anonymous promiscuity among gays. Another is declining practice of safe sex among gays who are perfectly aware of how to protect themselves.
All in all, I think it would be prudent if MCPS were to advise students of the dangers of participating in gay culture in our country.
"The initial push for the curriculum revisions came from the health teachers."
Thank you. I heard them pushing it myself. Their argument seem to center primarily on how backward Montgomery County was compared with everyone else in the country. (Sounds like they got a spiel at some teachers' convention.) They also claimed that the county had no condom demonstration video but TTF later unearthed one (apparently out of use- and out of mind.)
MCPS teachers requested the curriculum revisions because their hands were tied. The CRC endorsed existing curriculum provides absolutely no information about homosexuality. In recent years, from Ellen Degeneris' show to Matthew Shepard's murder to Bush pushing a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, homosexuality has been in the news quite a bit. Teens, being the curious creatures that they are, ask their health teachers lots of questions about it. Lawsuit crazed prudes make teachers uneasy about having to "wing it" to answer these questions. This is why MCPS teachers asked for a curriculum that includes information on sexual orientation, so teachers would have medically accurate information to provide in response to their students' questions. Your BS assumption about MCPS teachers is dead wrong, as usual. MCPS didn't get to be one of the finest public school systems in the world in spite of its teachers but because of them.
The "unearthed" condom demonstation you refer to is in 1992's filmstrip "Hope is Not a Method." Several contraceptives that are no longer available on the market are also discussed in this film which is why most MCPS teachers don't use it; it contains outdated information. Virtually none of the CDC's information on proper condom use was included in that animated demonstration, which by the way, depicts human intercourse. An animated condom-sheathed penis is shown inserted into an animated vagina. Showing this erotic technique is clearly in violation of COMAR and yet this is the condom demonstration video that CRC endorses. Go figure.
""This is not a homophobic community, as the election returns have confirmed."
The electorate, based on media reports, had assumed pro-family groups had prevailed."
You must be talking about the electorate in a Montgomery County in some other state.
"This whole thing is always up in the air and out of focus whenever elections roll around. The school board clearly designs it that way. "
My my. You are in full Liar Liar mode today. I've got news for you. The school board did not design the suers' lawsuit and that pathetic lawsuit is the reason we are where we are in this process of revising the curriculum today.
Theresa: In response to your comments about former Gov. McGreevy of New Jersey, I think a more important and significant question for you to be asking is: "would you condone a man having sex with another woman while his wife was in the hospital with his baby?"
The reality is that promiscuity and marital deceit are endemic among heterosexual couples. As the expression goes: "people who live in glass houses...." Gay men and lesbian women are not responsible for the horrendous and stupefying divorce rate in this country.
I was particularly astounded by this paragraph:
"Or do you feel like I do, that his daughter will read this book one day, and he has once again demonstrated enormous selfishness at the expense of others ... both in his initial behavior, and in now exposing his "confessions" to the world.... just curious how far you will go here to justify the clearly immoral in light of "self cleansing".... I view his book as EVERY bit as bad as the initial behavior - didn't he tromp on his family enough... oh, but I forgot, it's all about me and my needs - my family be damned."
You couldn't have come up with a more damning condemnation of so many of the divorces that occur in "traditional" American families than that!
I hope if you ever read Gov. McGreevy's book you will do so out of a need to learn and understand how the hatred and dehumanization of gay people can have such a profound effect on their lives rather than what I fear might be your prurient interest in the sex life of the Governor.
.
Teresa, I thought the last anon was saying that cheating is cheating, no matter who the partner is. Is it worse to cheat on your spouse with someone of your own sex, like this guy, or someone of opposite sex, like say, Newt Gingrish?
Did you think a guy should just stop being gay?
"Teresa, I thought the last anon was saying that cheating is cheating, no matter who the partner is. Is it worse to cheat on your spouse with someone of your own sex, like this guy, or someone of opposite sex, like say, Newt Gingrish?"
Oh, it may not be worse but the liberal media will never treat the hetro like a beleaguered victim of irrestible forces.
"Did you think a guy should just stop being gay?"
I do. Resistance is possible.
Beatrice K:
I'm glad you guys have stopped arguing against the high rate of random and anonymous promiscuity among gays. It kind of makes a mockery of your claim to advocate teaching "facts".
The question is: why do you not advocate alerting kids to the characteristics of this population when you teach about people with aberrant sexual tendencies? It's immoral not to warn these kids what they would likely be getting into if they pursued gay relations.
"MCPS teachers requested the curriculum revisions because their hands were tied. The CRC endorsed existing curriculum provides absolutely no information about homosexuality. In recent years, from Ellen Degeneris' show to Matthew Shepard's murder to Bush pushing a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, homosexuality has been in the news quite a bit. Teens, being the curious creatures that they are, ask their health teachers lots of questions about it. Lawsuit crazed prudes make teachers uneasy about having to "wing it" to answer these questions. This is why MCPS teachers asked for a curriculum that includes information on sexual orientation, so teachers would have medically accurate information to provide in response to their students' questions."
Teachers were free to discuss homosexuality and did. The questions you discussed above were appropriate for political science classes and were regularly discussed there. But I'm glad you realize this is a teacher movement not a parent one.
"Your BS assumption about MCPS teachers is dead wrong, as usual. MCPS didn't get to be one of the finest public school systems in the world in spite of its teachers but because of them."
I didn't voice any assumption about teachers. The quality in MCPS faculty is varied. There are certainly some excellent teachers in the system.
I do think administrative and governance areas are pretty uniformly incompetent. And the teacher union is too powerful and dedicated to politically correct causes of dubious academic validity. The main reason we rank so high nationally is the economic stability of the area and high percentage of families headed by those with postgraduate degrees.
"The "unearthed" condom demonstation you refer to is in 1992's filmstrip "Hope is Not a Method." Several contraceptives that are no longer available on the market are also discussed in this film which is why most MCPS teachers don't use it; it contains outdated information. Virtually none of the CDC's information on proper condom use was included in that animated demonstration, which by the way, depicts human intercourse. An animated condom-sheathed penis is shown inserted into an animated vagina. Showing this erotic technique is clearly in violation of COMAR and yet this is the condom demonstration video that CRC endorses. Go figure."
Well, the only thing I know about this video is that health teachers said to me personally before the Fishback controversy, that one didn't exist. Everything else, I learned here and you've filled in some more blanks- and seem to contradict what some others have said about it.
"The electorate, based on media reports, had assumed pro-family groups had prevailed."
You must be talking about the electorate in a Montgomery County in some other state."
Just a couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post said that TTF had "lost" a battle with religious conservatives. The public was led to believe the whole thing was over.
""This whole thing is always up in the air and out of focus whenever elections roll around. The school board clearly designs it that way. "
My my. You are in full Liar Liar mode today. I've got news for you. The school board did not design the suers' lawsuit and that pathetic lawsuit is the reason we are where we are in this process of revising the curriculum today."
They purposely waited to issue the Fishback revisions until after the last election and, last Spring and Summer, delayed and cancelled meetings until they could be sure the gay curriculum wouldn't come out prior to the primary.
Theresa, I find it interesting that you say Africa is an "anomaly" as far as HIV goes. From a god's-eye view, America is the anomaly. There are very many more AIDS cases in Africa than here.
JimK
"Do you think this is some kind of joke? The "ex-gay" ministries are religious and do not belong in the schools. No one has ever said that only religious people consider homosexuality immoral."
No one has proposed putting an ex-gay ministry in public schools. We advocate telling students that having these types of feelings is not a lifetime sentence and resistance to these impulses is possible and may result in the elimination of them. There is no research that contradicts this and plenty of anectodal basis to affirm it.
"You lie again, and I'm getting tired of it."
Yes, I know- lies, hatred and fear. The liberals' tired stock buzzwords.
""Personally, I would expect ignorant people, whether religious or not, to fear and judge something they can't understand."
What do you think people don't understand?
I'm sorry, but I don't have time to answer that one."
Time's not your only obstacle.
"Theresa, I find it interesting that you say Africa is an "anomaly" as far as HIV goes. From a god's-eye view, America is the anomaly. There are very many more AIDS cases in Africa than here."
And the differences show what toleration of sexual immorality leads to.
Theresa posted,I personally really would not care how twisted you wanted to make your program ... hey anal sex, bi-sexuality, gender disorders, bestiality, have at it.
How twisted is the person who wrote the above???????
Theresa and Wyatt seem to be on same wavelength in personalities.
Ted
I'm glad you guys have stopped arguing against the high rate of random and anonymous promiscuity among gays. It kind of makes a mockery of your claim to advocate teaching "facts".
The "fact" is when you are not permitted to marry and share a lifetime with the person you love, all sorts of negative results may occur. Look how Micheal Jackson, an ex-gay minister and leader acted out,
intentionally infecting people with his HIV. If we allow same sex marriages occur, promiscuity will decrease.
Teachers were free to discuss homosexuality and did. The questions you discussed above were appropriate for political science classes and were regularly discussed there. But I'm glad you realize this is a teacher movement not a parent one.
You are lying again today I see... MCPS teachers were not "free to discuss homosexuality." They were instructed to answer students' questions on the topic in a perfunctory manner and to move on. Human sexuality is a proper topic for classes in human sexuality. Health teachers requested updated materials in the sex education curriculum and MCPS parents by a factor of 4 to 1 indicated their support for these revisions by writing to the Board of Education. The mostly private school and home school parents who support the CRC's head-in-the-sand position on sex education were in the minority from the beginning and remain there today.
"I didn't voice any assumption about teachers."
Here is your assumption about teachers: "Their argument seem to center primarily on how backward Montgomery County was compared with everyone else in the country. (Sounds like they got a spiel at some teachers' convention.) " It is false, another lie.
Well, the only thing I know about this video is....
Glad to see you admit you know nothing about the filmstrip called "Hope Is Not A Method." I've watched it in its entirety and you can too. Just call the health teacher at your teen's MCPS high school and make arrangements to go in a view it like I did so you'll know what you're talking about.
"They purposely waited to issue the Fishback revisions until after the last election and, last Spring and Summer, delayed and cancelled meetings until they could be sure the gay curriculum wouldn't come out prior to the primary."
More lies! The first revisions were delayed because Retta and Michelle called for numerous votes in their attempts to add their personal religious views to the curriculum. Ask Retta to let you listen to her tapes of those CAC meetings, the ones she refuses to publicize. The biggest delay in the new revision process was from June 2005 through January 2006. That's the period we all got to wait for the CRC to comply with the rules for applicants from organizations to join the CAC. They nominated Retta Brown, who had previously served on the CAC and was therefore not qualified. It was not until January of this year that they finally nominated Ruth Jacobs, who had not previously served and was therefore qualified.
Anonymous said:
"No one has proposed putting an ex-gay ministry in public schools. We advocate telling students that having these types of feelings is not a lifetime sentence and resistance to these impulses is possible and may result in the elimination of them. There is no research that contradicts this and plenty of anectodal basis to affirm it."
Plenty? No. Extremely few actually claim to have completely eliminated their same sex attraction. Even amongst the "professional" ex-gays and high profile figures who advocate leaving the "gay lifestyle" still admit that same sex attraction still "lingers" like alcohol tempts alcoholics (their perception of things).
Personally, I think if you're going to include anything that could relate to "ex-gays", information on "ex-ex-gays" should be included also along with everything else that's related. But really, that sort of information should not be part of a health curriculum because it's too controversial to be appropriate.
As far as I'm aware, the curriculum doesn't dictate how students should live, merely how major professional organisations answer common questions regarding the topic.
But how does reparative therapy compare to other behavior disorders like Alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers, kleptomaniacs, or any of the thousands of other behavior disorders
Anonymous said:
"But how does reparative therapy compare to other behavior disorders like Alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers, kleptomaniacs, or any of the thousands of other behavior disorders"
Since when was reparative therapy a behaviour disorder? Did you mean homosexuality? How do you define a disorder?
"I'm glad you guys have stopped arguing against the high rate of random and anonymous promiscuity among gays. It kind of makes a mockery of your claim to advocate teaching "facts".
The "fact" is when you are not permitted to marry and share a lifetime with the person you love, all sorts of negative results may occur."
People who feel attraction to people of their own gender need to learn appropriate ways to express this feeling. Sex is not the only way to express love. Sexual activity between same gender persons is not in society's best interest- or their own.
"Look how Micheal Jackson, an ex-gay minister and leader acted out,
intentionally infecting people with his HIV."
Never heard of him but there's a million stories in the big city.
"If we allow same sex marriages occur, promiscuity will decrease."
That's a dubious theory. Any data backing it up? There are areas of the country where gay relationships are accepted as normal and AIDS infection rates are higher there than in other areas.
"Teachers were free to discuss homosexuality and did. The questions you discussed above were appropriate for political science classes and were regularly discussed there. But I'm glad you realize this is a teacher movement not a parent one.
You are lying again today I see... MCPS teachers were not "free to discuss homosexuality." They were instructed to answer students' questions on the topic in a perfunctory manner and to move on. Human sexuality is a proper topic for classes in human sexuality. Health teachers requested updated materials in the sex education curriculum"
You don't know what you're talking about, Beatrice. Teachers not only talked about it: they gave assignments about it, ran debates about it, acted with bias toward kids with traditional viewpoints. The instructions you're talking about pertained to health class. It was possibly proper because of the inconclusive nature of research on the topic. If they now want to talk about it, they shouldn't engage in viewpoint discrimination.
"and MCPS parents by a factor of 4 to 1 indicated their support for these revisions by writing to the Board of Education."
Oh, please. If you think that's the way to gauge public opinion, let's tell Ehrlich to get rid of the computers and conduct elections by letter writing campaigns.
"The mostly private school and home school parents who support the CRC's head-in-the-sand position on sex education were in the minority from the beginning and remain there today."
To begin with, the views of all voters need to be considered. We elect the school board through the general electorate not only by parental vote. Obviously, these people could have their kids in public schools if the schools were the best place for their kids.
""I didn't voice any assumption about teachers."
Here is your assumption about teachers: "Their argument seem to center primarily on how backward Montgomery County was compared with everyone else in the country. (Sounds like they got a spiel at some teachers' convention.) " It is false, another lie."
Here's what you said:
"Your BS assumption about MCPS teachers is dead wrong, as usual. MCPS didn't get to be one of the finest public school systems in the world in spite of its teachers but because of them."
Your BS implication is that I think MCPS teachers are of poor quality. I don't because it's an inappropriate generality. If you're now saying that my BS assumption is that teachers listen to spiels at conventions and are influenced by them, OK, I plead guilty.
"Well, the only thing I know about this video is....
Glad to see you admit you know nothing about the filmstrip called "Hope Is Not A Method." I've watched it in its entirety and you can too. Just call the health teacher at your teen's MCPS high school and make arrangements to go in a view it like I did so you'll know what you're talking about."
Really? I thought you said it was too erotic to use. They'll show me erotic films that are inappropriate for teens. Let's not let this get out!
BTW, I wasn't really ever talking about it. I was referring to TTF's use of it as a propaganda device.
""They purposely waited to issue the Fishback revisions until after the last election and, last Spring and Summer, delayed and cancelled meetings until they could be sure the gay curriculum wouldn't come out prior to the primary."
More lies! The first revisions were delayed because Retta and Michelle called for numerous votes in their attempts to add their personal religious views to the curriculum. Ask Retta to let you listen to her tapes of those CAC meetings, the ones she refuses to publicize."
Give me a break. That had time to get it out before the election.
"The biggest delay in the new revision process was from June 2005 through January 2006. That's the period we all got to wait for the CRC to comply with the rules for applicants from organizations to join the CAC. They nominated Retta Brown, who had previously served on the CAC and was therefore not qualified. It was not until January of this year that they finally nominated Ruth Jacobs, who had not previously served and was therefore qualified."
Qualified in what way? By MCPS standards. The county is more responsible than anyone for that delay. There were simply trying to manipulate the committee to minimize the chance that the position they had already pre-ordained would have any effective dissent.
"We advocate telling students that having these types of feelings is not a lifetime sentence and resistance to these impulses is possible and may result in the elimination of them. There is no research that contradicts this and plenty of anectodal basis to affirm it."
Plenty? No. Extremely few actually claim to have completely eliminated their same sex attraction. Even amongst the "professional" ex-gays and high profile figures who advocate leaving the "gay lifestyle" still admit that same sex attraction still "lingers" like alcohol tempts alcoholics (their perception of things)."
Among those who actually indulge these impulses and act out this behavior, that's probably true. All the more reason to not teach a curriculum that views these impulses as normal and treats the decision to act on them lightly.
"Personally, I think if you're going to include anything that could relate to "ex-gays", information on "ex-ex-gays" should be included also along with everything else that's related. But really, that sort of information should not be part of a health curriculum because it's too controversial to be appropriate."
You could point out how hard it is to overcome these feelings once acted upon. As for controversial, that applies to the whole Fishback variations curriculum. Now of it has any scientific validity.
"As far as I'm aware, the curriculum doesn't dictate how students should live, merely how major professional organisations answer common questions regarding the topic."
By teaching these positions, it implies that they are facts. An opinion of an organization is still an opinion. No viewpoint discrimination should be allowed.
"How do you define a disorder?"
Inability to function as designed.
Anonymous said:
"People who feel attraction to people of their own gender need to learn appropriate ways to express this feeling. Sex is not the only way to express love. Sexual activity between same gender persons is not in society's best interest- or their own."
So wouldn't marriage be an ideal way for gay couples to express their love for each other?
Anonymous said:
"There were simply trying to manipulate the committee to minimize the chance that the position they had already pre-ordained would have any effective dissent."
Maybe you should learn that your perception doesn't always reflect reality accurately.
Anonymous said:
"You could point out how hard it is to overcome these feelings once acted upon."
What makes you think they need to be acted upon? If anyone wishes to fully "overcome" their same-sex attraction, it's gonna be nigh on impossible regardless of their behaviour.
Anonymous said:
"As for controversial, that applies to the whole Fishback variations curriculum. Now of it has any scientific validity."
Those versions have more scientific basis than a curriculum that includes reparative therapy and "ex-gay" ideology.
Anonymous said:
"By teaching these positions, it implies that they are facts. An opinion of an organization is still an opinion. No viewpoint discrimination should be allowed."
So they should just leave out human sexuality altogether because it's currently too complex for us to understand let alone teach? Or should they include everything including ex-ex-gays?
If you propose the inclusion of ex-gay material, it would be hypocritical of you if you did not also propose the inclusion of ex-ex-gay material. If there is to be no viewpoint discrimination, chuck as much you can fit into two short classes and let the students leave the class completely confused.
Anonymous said:
"How do you define a disorder?"
Anonymous said:
"Inability to function as designed."
And how do you determine how a person is designed?
"So wouldn't marriage be an ideal way for gay couples to express their love for each other?"
No, it wouldn't. Marriage is designed as between opposite genders. The male-female dichitomy makes for a safer and more stable society. This is the reason promiscuity is so prominent among those who engage in male-to-male sexual relations. In normal sexual relationships, the female partner provides the restraint which keeps most relationships fairly monogamous.
"Maybe you should learn that your perception doesn't always reflect reality accurately."
If you don't realize that the school board already has a good idea what curriculum they wanted long before they put it to a CAC, you're not very perceptive at all.
"What makes you think they need to be acted upon? If anyone wishes to fully "overcome" their same-sex attraction, it's gonna be nigh on impossible regardless of their behaviour."
Completely wrong and unsupported.
""As for controversial, that applies to the whole Fishback variations curriculum. Now of it has any scientific validity."
Those versions have more scientific basis than a curriculum that includes reparative therapy and "ex-gay" ideology."
Just as long as everyone realizes that the Fishback curriculum has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with trying to extend civil rights to a group based on their feelings. That would be a first and a horrible precedent.
So as long as the schools properly present TTF ideas as ideas and not facts, then yes, let's discuss all the ideas.
""By teaching these positions, it implies that they are facts. An opinion of an organization is still an opinion. No viewpoint discrimination should be allowed."
So they should just leave out human sexuality altogether because it's currently too complex for us to understand let alone teach? Or should they include everything including ex-ex-gays?
If you propose the inclusion of ex-gay material, it would be hypocritical of you if you did not also propose the inclusion of ex-ex-gay material. If there is to be no viewpoint discrimination, chuck as much you can fit into two short classes and let the students leave the class completely confused."
Why don't we chuck in all the widely held theories? If scientists are confused, the kids should taught so.
"Anonymous said:
"How do you define a disorder?"
Anonymous said:
"Inability to function as designed."
And how do you determine how a person is designed?"
It's obvious. When you have to adopt to become a parent and lubricate and dope to have sex, something is not functioning as designed.
"The "fact" is when you are not permitted to marry and share a lifetime with the person you love, all sorts of negative results may occur."
Beatrice:
You're so confused! They aren't promiscuous because they can't get married. It's because it's a natural male characteristic unrestrained by a female partner. You'll notice that those who engage in female-to-female relationships don't tend toward promiscuity.
Promiscuity isn't the only problem either. It's the random anonymity. Even among heterosexuals who fornicate or stray outside marriage, there tends to be an unlimited number of partners. It's not unusual for gays, especially young ones to a high number of one-nighters.
We need to include factual information about this dangerous subculture if we discuss this in public schools.
Whoops! Here's an edited version:
"The "fact" is when you are not permitted to marry and share a lifetime with the person you love, all sorts of negative results may occur."
Beatrice:
You're so confused! They aren't promiscuous because they can't get married. It's because it's a natural male characteristic unrestrained by a female partner. You'll notice that those who engage in female-to-female relationships don't tend toward promiscuity.
Promiscuity isn't the only problem either. It's the random anonymity. Even among heterosexuals who fornicate or stray outside marriage, there tends to be a limited number of partners. It's not unusual for gays, however, especially young ones, to have a high number of one-nighters.
We need to include factual information about this dangerous subculture if we discuss this in public schools.
Anonymous said:
"No, it wouldn't. Marriage is designed as between opposite genders. The male-female dichitomy makes for a safer and more stable society. This is the reason promiscuity is so prominent among those who engage in male-to-male sexual relations. In normal sexual relationships, the female partner provides the restraint which keeps most relationships fairly monogamous."
Ah, so lesbians are the most stable couples of all then? Why shouldn't they get married?
Anonymous said:
"If you don't realize that the school board already has a good idea what curriculum they wanted long before they put it to a CAC, you're not very perceptive at all."
Saying there were trying to "manipulate" the committee is too farfetched. It's fine if you want to see it that way, as long as you don't go stating it as fact.
Anonymous said:
"What makes you think they need to be acted upon? If anyone wishes to fully "overcome" their same-sex attraction, it's gonna be nigh on impossible regardless of their behaviour."
Anonymous said:
"Completely wrong and unsupported."
If your think that's the case, the least you can do is elaborate.
Anonymous said:
"Just as long as everyone realizes that the Fishback curriculum has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with trying to extend civil rights to a group based on their feelings. That would be a first and a horrible precedent."
Looks like we're back to your perception not accurately reflecting reality. Everything to do with extending civil rights? You're jumping too many hoops to reach a fallicious conclusion; you're letting your personal bias affect your judgement.
Anonymous said:
"Why don't we chuck in all the widely held theories? If scientists are confused, the kids should taught so."
The only problem would be the sheer amount of information required. It would take at least a year's worth of health classes just to even scratch the surface of it all.
Anonymous said:
"It's obvious. When you have to adopt to become a parent and lubricate and dope to have sex, something is not functioning as designed."
So anal sex is now a disorder? And no, adoption is not the only way to parenthood (assuming everyone was designed for parenthood). Unless there is a biological reason, homosexuals are capable of producing children naturally.
Anonymous said:
"Promiscuity isn't the only problem either. It's the random anonymity. Even among heterosexuals who fornicate or stray outside marriage, there tends to be a limited number of partners. It's not unusual for gays, however, especially young ones, to have a high number of one-nighters.
We need to include factual information about this dangerous subculture if we discuss this in public schools."
Random anonymity stems from promiscuity, so really the problem is just promiscuity. Straight males who are promiscuous are just as likely to have as many partners as gay males who are promiscuous, although you probably have a greater chance of finding a promiscuous male among gays than straights due to -- as you pointed out -- female restraint for straight males. Promiscuity is the problem, so information on a "dangerous subculture" would likely cause more offense (needlessly) than actually help in any way.
People who feel attraction to people of their own gender need to learn appropriate ways to express this feeling. Sex is not the only way to express love. Sexual activity between same gender persons is not in society's best interest- or their own.
I didn't mention sex; you did. I mentioned marriage and sharing a lifetime with the person you love. An appropriate way to express love is to marry the person you love so you can support him or her through sickness and health, in good times and bad, for richer for poorer, etc. Regardless of your views, it is legal for same sex couples to have sex with each other now that the US Supreme Court has decided the Lawrence case. But sex is not a sound basis for building a committed monogamous relationship. My point is that people who make a commitment to monogamy through marriage tend to reduce their own promiscuous behavior.
It's because it's [promiscuity is] a natural male characteristic unrestrained by a female partner.
The gender of the partner has nothing to do with it. Having a committed monogamous partner is a good way to reduce promiscuity.
Never heard of him [Micheal Jackson] but there's a million stories in the big city.
The fact that you "never heard of" this fallen ex-gay minister and former ex-gay poster boy demonstrates how little you know about the radical fringe ex-gay leaders you support.
"If we allow same sex marriages occur, promiscuity will decrease."
That's a dubious theory. Any data backing it up?
Heterosexual divorce rates are high due to promiscuous behavior by either spouse yet we still push heterosexual marriage as a way to keep men from sewing wild oats. Gay marriage will be just as effective at keeping guys monogamous as straight marriage. In fact, gay marriage is a twofer.
You don't know what you're talking about, Beatrice. Teachers not only talked about it: they gave assignments about it, ran debates about it, acted with bias toward kids with traditional viewpoints. The instructions you're talking about pertained to health class. It was possibly proper because of the inconclusive nature of research on the topic. If they now want to talk about it, they shouldn't engage in viewpoint discrimination.
So have you decided which it is yet? Either I don't know what I'm talking about or I am "talking about" "instructions" that "pertained to health class" according to your statements above. Let me remind you that this TTF blog is here to support the health curriculum for MCPS health classes. Try to keep up. What non-health MCPS classes with assignments and debates are you talking about?
"and MCPS parents by a factor of 4 to 1 indicated their support for these revisions by writing to the Board of Education."
Oh, please. If you think that's the way to gauge public opinion, let's tell Ehrlich to get rid of the computers and conduct elections by letter writing campaigns.
OK. You want to talk about election results instead of letters from the public to the BOE expressing praise and support for the revised health education curriculum? Here you go. All of the 2006 candidates for MCPS BOE who won the right to stand in the general election in November support TTF's position on the sex education curriculum except for one. That's a 5 to 1 ratio favoring the TTF position (O'Neill, Kaufman, Navarro, Brandman, and Docca vs. Le), which is even better than the 4 to 1 ratio that the letters of support to the BOE demonstrated. And remember, Le's position varies.
I repeat: CRC supporters remain in the minority here in Montgomery County. TTF supporters outnumber CRC supporters by a factor of 5 to 1 as evidenced by our most recent election results.
Your BS implication is that I think MCPS teachers are of poor quality. I don't because it's an inappropriate generality. If you're now saying that my BS assumption is that teachers listen to spiels at conventions and are influenced by them, OK, I plead guilty.
I think everyone who reads your comments here regularly knows that your opinion of anyone associated with MCPS is low. Referring to MCPS teachers you said "their argument seem to center primarily on how backward MC was compared to everyone else in the country." I have news for you. MCPS teachers are not followers and they do not concern themselves with "keeping up with the Joneses." MCPS teachers are leaders in education and the rest of the country looks up to and tries to keep up with their professionalism and success.
Really? I thought you said it was too erotic to use. They'll show me erotic films that are inappropriate for teens. Let's not let this get out!
Nice flippant response. The fact that you're blowing smoke instead of seriously responding demonstrates that you have no defense of the CRC's hypocritical positions on the issue of "erotic techniques."
I said "Hope Is Not A Method" which CRC supports contains an animated depiction of vaginal intercourse in violation of COMAR's mandate: "Erotic techniques of human intercourse may not be discussed." http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/13a/13a.04.18.03.htm
BTW, I wasn't really ever talking about it. I was referring to TTF's use of it as a propaganda device.
Who is it that keeps arguing that you can't even mention the terms "anal sex" or "oral sex" because doing so violates the COMAR provision cited above and yet also supports the existing curriculum containing "Hope Is Not A Method" which contains such a clear violation? If you really want to talk about propaganda devices here, I'd be glad to. The CRC keeps trying to injure MCPS's and BOE's reputations with two-faced complaints about "erotic techniques." This is the very definition of "propaganda."
"The biggest delay in the new revision process was from June 2005 through January 2006. That's the period we all got to wait for the CRC to comply with the rules for applicants from organizations to join the CAC. They nominated Retta Brown, who had previously served on the CAC and was therefore not qualified. It was not until January of this year that they finally nominated Ruth Jacobs, who had not previously served and was therefore qualified."
Qualified in what way? By MCPS standards. The county is more responsible than anyone for that delay. There were simply trying to manipulate the committee to minimize the chance that the position they had already pre-ordained would have any effective dissent.
If you want a job working with MCPS, one of the most highly regarded public school systems in the world, you should have to meet their high standards. In the case of the newly reconstituted CAC, the standards were very simple: organizational nominees had to be county residents who had not have served on CAC before. Did the CRC comply? Well, yeah, but only after seven months of insisting that their last rep on the CAC, Retta Brown, met those simple qualifications.
Aunt Bea mentioned "Hope Is Not A Method" which CRC supports...
I will point out for the record that I watched that movie with the CRC president sitting in the room, too. It's not like they didn't know about it.
JimK
"If you want a job working with MCPS, one of the most highly regarded public school systems in the world, you should have to meet their high standards. In the case of the newly reconstituted CAC, the standards were very simple: organizational nominees had to be county residents who had not have served on CAC before."
Why did they drop their high standards for the CAC? Other than making sure that the people who had caught them trying to violate the constitutional rights of students couldn't be on it, what other standard did they have? Oh yeah, they put on a rep from a fringe group whose stated purpose was to support them. Talk about stacking the deck!
If you're going to talk about "stacking the deck," then don't forget to mention "shortening the deck." The suers *victorious* settlement agreement cut community input on the CAC nearly in half from 27 members to 15, trying to make their stack of two members more potent. It didn't work. Most of the CAC votes so far have unequivocally demonstrated that the suers remain firmly in the minority.
Even with it halved, the MCPS BOE did an excellent job staffing the new CAC and here's the proof. If the CAC genuinely represents the MCPS school district, then the votes on the CAC should closely mirror the votes in county elections. Guess what? They do!
The recent primary election results demonstrate that TTF is a mainstream group of local citizens who have earned the support of the majority of voters here in Montgomery County. Most of BOE candidates who survived the primary and will be on the ballot in November support TTF's position on comprehensive and inclusive sex education.
"The recent primary election results demonstrate that TTF is a mainstream group of local citizens who have earned the support of the majority of voters here in Montgomery County."
No, it doesn't. You need to get out of the kitchen, Beatrice, and talk to some of your neighbors. The CAC is a poor representation of our community. The community thinks, based on media reports, that CRC won and so have moved on to other issues.
You obviously have me confused with some other woman with a different name. I spend more time on the campaign trail in the MoCo community than I do in the kitchen. Our kids are grown and my husband, bless his soul, knows his way around the kitchen well enough that he has a nice hot meal waiting for me when I get home from my community outreach work.
But back to the subject at hand...
There you go again, making BS assumptions about what you believe the "community thinks." The recent primary election results show what our community actually thinks about the BOE race, proving your assumption is BS. The results indicate most voters in our community want a BOE that supports TTF's position on the health education curriculum.
Give it some time. You'll get over it.
Beatrice
Your BS assumption, apparent to all is that the health curriculum issue was being voted on. The voters believe the courts settled the issue. It was not a consideration in their choice of Board member.
I am not trying to gloat - only to point something out.
A while back, i pointed out some errors on the CRC site to someone who asked. He seemed to be sure in his negative comments about this group. He said he would respond about the errors.
I am writing this email to point out that he has not gotten back to anyone about those errors.
Which errors were those?
JimK
hey jim!
the errors are farther up on the page. when the anonymous person wanted more info about the CRC errors, I posted about some links I saw on its site. The anonymous person said he would respond, but he or she didn't
"You asked me to be more specific about CRC, so I will.
No doubt, you will attempt to shoot me down with ad hominem attacks but I think this should be posted for record:
This is from a report I created on CRC a while back:
CRC claims that its opponents engage in propaganda. But a quick look at the CRC’s resources on its webpage, clearly shows that the CRC is guilty of the crime they have accused Teach the Facts. Several of their “resources” are just propaganda pieces filled with distortions and lies:
A. 15 Good Reasons to Oppose ‘Sexual Orientation’ (Homosexuality) Codes in Schools.
This piece, linked from the CRC webpage is from Peter LaBarbera from Concerned Women for America. Even the title is a distortion. No school operates a “sexual orientation” code. I am not even certain that this phrase even exists. From the onset, it is plainly seen that LaBarbera is engaging in propaganda and fear tactics. This is further demonstrated when one reads the piece. His first point is a distortion:
“Homosexual behavior is wrong (and illegal in some states) . . .”
The first problem with this is that LaBarbera has not established what exactly is “homosexual behavior.” Secondly, he is incorrect about the legality of it. Clearly LaBarbera is leading the reader to think that “homosexual behavior” is a description involving solely sexual behavior. His piece was written in 2002 (before Lawrence vs. Texas) made sodomy laws illegal. But even if somehow Lawrence vs. Texas had ruled the other way, his assertion of homosexual behavior being illegal is incorrect. Most of the sodomy laws had to do with sexual acts, heterosexual or homosexual, and not whom the acts were being committed with
LaBabera continues his distortions with point two:
“Homosexual actions are unhealthy - especially for males. Like smoking, alcohol, and drug abuse, they should be discouraged. Dangerous behavior that shortens a person’s life should never be promoted to impressionable students.”
Again, LaBarbera does not give a description of what exactly are “homosexual actions,” leading the reader to think that “homosexual actions” can only be defined by sexual behavior rather than orientation. Also, his second point regarding “homosexual actions” shortening a person’s lifespan is an out and out distortion. No legitimate researcher has ever said that homosexuality shortens someone’s lifespan. The Centers for Disease Control has gone on record saying that they have never conducted studies saying that homosexuality “shortens” someone’s lifespan.
The only two sources LaBarbera and his groups can cite comes from a distorted Oxford study (talked about further in the next section) and a discredited researcher by the name of Paul Cameron. Among other things, Cameron had his membership in the American Psychological Association taken away because he was found guilty of distorting the work of other researchers.
B. The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools
The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools, also linked from CRC's website, contains several factual errors and distortions. Page three contains this passage:
“Oxford University’s International Journal of Epidemiology indicates that gay and bisexual men involved in same-sex activity risk cutting years off their lives. One study showed:In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”
But that passage is a distortion.
In 2001, researchers Robert S Hogg, Stefan A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V. O'Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T Schechter wrote a letter to the editor in the International Journal of Epidemiology (http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499) in which they said that any use of their research to prove that homosexuals have a shorter lifespan is incorrect and improper.
The six researchers also had this little tidbit to say in regards to death and life spans:
"Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or
she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or
social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for
legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables
that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the
construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the
appropriate ones to be used."
Now this only scratches the surface of the distortions of CRC. Like I said before, no doubt you will engage in ad hominem attack or accuse me of being having credibility due to my orientation but if you look at my sources, you will see that I am correct. and for the record, I am Alvin McEwen, not Anne."
""And furthermore, to denigrate an entire group of people is not spreading truth. I have read CRC's literature and it is full of discredited research and cherry picked studies."
You'd have to be more specific but, remember, nothing TTF says concerning sexual preference is supported by scientific research."
Alvin
I think I found the exchange you're talking about but its kind of long. I usually say I'll get back to you with these mega-entries because I don't have a very long attention span when it comes to the blogosphere. Could you pick out one or two items to focus on?
gracias
Post a Comment
<< Home