The Blade Summarizes The Situation
It is always interesting to see how the Washington Blade, the local gay-community newspaper, perceives the controversy here in Montgomery County. They had a pretty big article this weekend about it.
Why, yes, that was me. Josh and I had a nice chat about all this.
We'll see a certain tiny group of whiners complain about this and that, but there isn't much there to bitch about. The whole thing is pretty straightforward. The state asked for a curriculum on sexual variations, and now they have one.
CRC and PFOX want the curriculum to talk about anal sex more, because they like people to think about gay people doing things like that. But the sexual orientation curriculum isn't about sexual intercourse, it's about sexual orientation. It's about romance and love as much as what people do in bed. In fact, these sections don't even mention what people do in bed.
There is a statement in the condom lesson, telling students to use a condom for all kinds of sexual activity, including anal sex, and the CRC takes that as an opportunity to go into the subject in more detail.
They seem unaware that anal sex is an overwhelmingly heterosexual behavior. Here, look at this CDC report. They think they can slime gays with this, but I don't think anybody's going for it.
Well, I doubt that MCPS is going to add an "anal sex" unit to the health class, no matter how much the CRC whines for it.
That's a pretty fair description of what happened.
This is a pretty long article, but I think Josh did his homework and got it right.
Hoo hoo hee hee. Mind control. Great one. The school curriculum is solidly based on literature by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association -- a lot of it was written by a panel from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Mind control, sure, whatever you think.
You know, if you write "CRC" on your tinfoil helmet, it works even better. (It's an old Rosicrucian trick.)
Hey, I'm sorry if my reasoning is ... too hard to follow.
Nobody is saying they don't exist or that there'd be anything wrong if a person switched. As far as sexual orientation goes, they'd only be moving from one category to another. Everybody fits somewhere, nobody's left out. If they want Brownie points for changing, they'll just have to get them somewhere else. At church, maybe.
Could we have included "ex-gay" without "ex-straight," which, as you can imagine, describes a vastly largely number of people? Could we have included "ex-gay" without "ex-ex-gay," which is also a vastly largely number? Come on, nobody wants to go there.
It just didn't make sense. Tell the judge whatever you want.
Yeah, that's not his place to comment on that. We hope that this time MCPS will be paying attention when the inevitable happens.
After years of debate and revision, Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools are poised to approve a gay-inclusive sex education curriculum.
A committee tasked with reviewing the lessons for eighth and 10th grade students approved it Wednesday. District officials must still review the curriculum, which was praised by pro-gay activists.
“I’m perfectly happy with it,” said Jim Kennedy, co-founder of Teach the Facts, a coalition of Maryland parents and supporters of the gay-inclusive curriculum.
“A conservative person might think that it’s a liberal curriculum,” he said, “but I think an ordinary person would think it’s just an ordinary curriculum.”
Kennedy said the lessons, titled “Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality,” explain concepts like sexual identity and orientation using nonjudgmental language.
“The fact is that some people are gay, and some people are straight,” he said. “It lays it out there, and it doesn’t make a judgment one way or the other.” by Joshua Lynsen: Mont. County readies gay-inclusive curriculum
Why, yes, that was me. Josh and I had a nice chat about all this.
We'll see a certain tiny group of whiners complain about this and that, but there isn't much there to bitch about. The whole thing is pretty straightforward. The state asked for a curriculum on sexual variations, and now they have one.
But curriculum opponents are lobbying district officials to reject the proposed curriculum.
Parents & Friends of Gays & Ex-Gays, along with Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, argue that students are not properly cautioned about the dangers of anal sex. They also protest the exclusion of “ex-gay” topics in the curriculum.
Neither organization responded this week to Blade requests for comment.
CRC and PFOX want the curriculum to talk about anal sex more, because they like people to think about gay people doing things like that. But the sexual orientation curriculum isn't about sexual intercourse, it's about sexual orientation. It's about romance and love as much as what people do in bed. In fact, these sections don't even mention what people do in bed.
There is a statement in the condom lesson, telling students to use a condom for all kinds of sexual activity, including anal sex, and the CRC takes that as an opportunity to go into the subject in more detail.
They seem unaware that anal sex is an overwhelmingly heterosexual behavior. Here, look at this CDC report. They think they can slime gays with this, but I don't think anybody's going for it.
Well, I doubt that MCPS is going to add an "anal sex" unit to the health class, no matter how much the CRC whines for it.
The curriculum — which has gone to district Superintendent Jerry Weast for administrative review — is scheduled for board action Jan. 9.
District spokesperson Brian Edwards said board members could approve the new curriculum at that meeting.
The new curriculum is the district’s second attempt to rewrite the sex education program. The first rewrite triggered a courtroom showdown when conservative groups objected to the new content.
To settle the lawsuit, school officials agreed to restart the curriculum revamp process. The committee’s Nov. 15 vote was the culmination of that effort.
That's a pretty fair description of what happened.
This is a pretty long article, but I think Josh did his homework and got it right.
According to the proposed curriculum, lessons are structured to broaden student vocabulary while stressing respect.
Students in eighth grade are taught to recognize healthy relationships, and how to define human sexuality, gender identity and other terms.
The lesson also examines “the harmful effect of making generalizations or stereotyping” people based on gender or sexual orientation.
Students in 10th grade receive a more robust curriculum, including an examination of topics such as coming out. It also asks students to consider the challenges a transgender student might face.
But curriculum opponents decried the focus on empathy.
In a letter to district officials, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum President Michelle Turner said the lessons are an affront to children with strong religious convictions.
“When schools start telling our children what they must think and how they must feel about others … aren’t the schools getting out of education and into mind control?”
Hoo hoo hee hee. Mind control. Great one. The school curriculum is solidly based on literature by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association -- a lot of it was written by a panel from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Mind control, sure, whatever you think.
You know, if you write "CRC" on your tinfoil helmet, it works even better. (It's an old Rosicrucian trick.)
Turner and other curriculum opponents are asking the school board to reject the lessons Jan. 9.
In one letter, Maryland psychologist Dean Byrd says the lessons are “anchored more in activism than in science or health.”
In another letter, Grace Harley, a local grandmother who identifies as “a former transgender,” says the curriculum is discriminatory.
“The lesson plans for our children and grandchildren are entitled ‘Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality,’ and promote acceptance for homosexuals, transgenders and the intersexed,” she wrote. “Yet the only sexual orientation in our school system which receives no respect are ex-gays and former transgenders like myself.”
Kennedy said the curriculum has no mention of “ex-gays” because 12 of 15 committee members were against its inclusion.
“It was just voted down,” he said. “The group didn’t want to have anything to do with it.”
Kennedy noted that current medical and scientific evidence does not view “ex-gay” as a codified sexual orientation.
“It’s not a kind of sexual orientation — that’s really all it comes down to,” he said. “If you used to be gay, and now you’re not, you’re heterosexual, right?”
Hey, I'm sorry if my reasoning is ... too hard to follow.
Nobody is saying they don't exist or that there'd be anything wrong if a person switched. As far as sexual orientation goes, they'd only be moving from one category to another. Everybody fits somewhere, nobody's left out. If they want Brownie points for changing, they'll just have to get them somewhere else. At church, maybe.
Could we have included "ex-gay" without "ex-straight," which, as you can imagine, describes a vastly largely number of people? Could we have included "ex-gay" without "ex-ex-gay," which is also a vastly largely number? Come on, nobody wants to go there.
It just didn't make sense. Tell the judge whatever you want.
But the omission could trigger yet another lawsuit.
“I would say I’m about 99 percent sure there will be a legal challenge,” Kennedy said.
Edwards declined to comment on the potential lawsuit, or how the district might respond.
Yeah, that's not his place to comment on that. We hope that this time MCPS will be paying attention when the inevitable happens.
posted by JimK at 9:55 AM
38 Comments:
"It's about romance and love..."
Well, it isn't supposed to be. It is supposed to be a factual discussion about the fact that some people are sexually attracted to others of their gender. The job was not to create fairy tales to give gays focus to their feelings.
Interesting that chief TTF propagandist, JK, says the curriculum is non-judgmental and yet even the Blade says it is "empathetic" to gays.
Also, interesting that JK is either the only one who will speak to the Blade or the only one they want to quote.
Sounds like it won't be real hard o demonstrate that this curriculum is a tool of the gay agenda.
"Hoo hoo hee hee. Mind control. Great one."
Yeah, real funny. One can just imagine the consequences for any student who dares to disagree with the curriculum's ideas.
"The school curriculum is solidly based on literature by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association"
Terrific. I guess we should all count ourselves lucky that the state didn't want MCPS to write a curriculum about sexual deviations like bestiality, etc..
The APA doesn't think there's anything wrong with those either.
anonymous said, Also, interesting that JK is either the only one who will speak to the Blade or the only one they want to quote.
If CRC and their pals PFOX can't spin it well you know they want no parts of the interview.
Maybe since the newspaper is the Blade CRC and PFOX was afraid a little a gay might come their way.
Ted
DB and Ted
I just don't understand why the Blade doesn't interview the chair of the CAC.
"Being sexually attracted to someone implies romance and love and affection. Usually those play into our decisions to marry."
Slanting this curriculum to support gay marriage will come back to haunt MCPS if they approve this curriculum.
"SInce when is empathy a bad thing? I thought Christians were supposed to have a great deal of it?"
Depends how it's directed. Telling a sick person they are fine is not compassionate.
Showing them the cure is.
"Telling a sick person they are fine is not compassionate. Showing them the cure is."
People of good faith should understand that telling others they are "sick" when they are not sick is cruel and encouraging them to take a bogus "cure" is even crueler. That is why the American Medical Association opposes these so-called "cures."
As a supporter of PFOX, Anon *thinks* conversion therapy is a cure for something US medical and mental health authorities have all determined is not an illness. Homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality which is controlled more by genetics than
left handedness.
PFOX supporters *believe* Richard Cohen's man-hugging, pillow-whacking, parent-blaming therapy will cure gay teens when all it does is provide more fresh young targets for the "coach." Anon *thinks* that because of his faith yet in spite of the words in the Bible, it's OK for him to judge others as "sick" and in need of a cure. And now that he hasn't mentioned it in a week or so, Anon apparently felt compelled to once again bring up his favorite subject - bestiality. He's mentioned it about as many times as Orin has mentioned father-daughter relations and polygamy.
Kinda makes you wonder how many more people lead secret double lives like Ted Haggard.
"And now that he hasn't mentioned it in a week or so, Anon apparently felt compelled to once again bring up his favorite subject - bestiality."
Seems it's only brought up whenever some TTfer starts citing the infallibility of the APA.
"Just so you know, Anon, empathy is not the same thing as compassion. Use a dictionary."
Thanks. I was giving you a break by assuming you meant empathy would lead to compassion. What end do you think empathy for gays would be for?
"Being decent and progressive will not haunt MCPS."
Statements from gay advocates that the curriculum demonstrates the need for gay marriage will. And this while the CAC refuses to phrase the curriculum to present real marriage as the ideal. The sickness abounds.
"A new era begins next week with a much more liberal school board and County Council. Get used to it."
Yeah, sounds like a real sea change. Whatever will conservatives do without that right-wing county government? It's going to take some getting used to!
Why is it that anon - like Rick Santorum- brings up bestiality? I have to wonder at people who bring up that subject. And exactly where does the APA say bestiality is okay? Just a lot more BS, huh, anon?
"Why is it that anon - like Rick Santorum- brings up bestiality? I have to wonder at people who bring up that subject. And exactly where does the APA say bestiality is okay? Just a lot more BS, huh, anon?"
Brought it up because TTF and the disbursed CAC used APA as a source beyond contestation. APA's view on this topic might give pause to anyone who accepts that fallacy.
The reference has been posted here many times.
"family blah-blah groups"
First time I've noticed you sinking to this level, Robert.
Disappointing.
Anon said "Brought it up because TTF and the disbursed CAC used APA as a source beyond contestation. APA's view on this topic might give pause to anyone who accepts that fallacy."
The only "fallacy" here is the one Anon is trying to create namely that the APA alone reached the conclusion (after reviewing the thousands of research papers on homosexuality from before the 1970s Anon has falsely claimed do not exist) that homosexuality is not a disease. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The fact is that the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Counseling Association (the group that expelled PFOX President Richard Cohen for ethical vioilations), the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Asoociation of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the American School Health Administration, and the Interfaith Alliance Federation all agree: homosexuality is not a disease.
Christine
Mister "bestiality" thinks "family blah blah" is "sinking" to a low level?
"The only "fallacy" here is the one Anon is trying to create namely that the APA alone reached the conclusion"
Actually, they didn't exactly reach a conclusion. It was a political battle. As you remember, polls of psychologists at the time showed that a majority did not agree.
It was really APA alone, though. If you'll read the statements from other organizations, you'll see they reference the APA's DSM.
"(after reviewing the thousands of research papers on homosexuality from before the 1970s Anon has falsely claimed do not exist) that homosexuality is not a disease."
Your own members here have concluded the research didn't exist. Of course, how could it? What constitutes disfunction is a value judgment based on what constitutes normal functioning. It's not a scientific question.
"Nothing could be farther from the truth."
see above
T"he fact is that the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Counseling Association (the group that expelled PFOX President Richard Cohen for ethical vioilations), the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Asoociation of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the American School Health Administration, and the Interfaith Alliance Federation all agree: homosexuality is not a disease."
see above
Admittedly, these organizations haven't approached bestiality. If they took the same approach though, they'd say "according to the DSM maintained by the APA, bestiality is not a disease."
I don't if the veterinarians' association has spoken on this. I wouldn't be surprised if PETA has.
My point is not to equate homosexuality with bestiality but simply to demonstrate that these associations are scientific authorities but not moral or philosophical authorities. Sorry if that doesn't advance the agenda but it is a fact.
"I will say it seems to me that Dobson enjoys his influence and power."
Doesn't everybody enjoy whatever influence and power they have? As long as they don't abuse it, I don't see the problem. Let us be aspirational rather than envious.
"I'd be curious to learn how much he personally makes, and what his lifestyle is like (does he live rich)."
If you'll go to ecfamembers.org, look up Focus on the Family in the members' directory. Go to their page and directly below their financial information is a link to their 990. Looking to the attached statement 17 on form 990, it appears Dobson doesn't currently receive any compensation from the organization. He probably has substantial income from book royalties.
"I don't have positive feelings about any of these groups.I see them as belittling me and my friends, and pushing ideas that make my life harder."
How so?
"They make me angry (and a little afraid; what if they were to replace the activist judges on the supreme court who voted on Lawrence v. Texas?)."
I wouldn't worry about that.
"Sorry, Anon, we've been there before. Dysfunction is a term used in medical circles, and it is, indeed, used in the context of the society in which one lives. The decision was made first by the shrinks in 1973, and then supported by all the other organizations. Their decision was not based on science at the time in a proactive sense, since there was really no genetics, molecular biology or cognitive science to speak of at the time."
So, when I said that the decision wasn't based on scientific evidence and cilly said it was based on "thousands" of papers, I was right.
If it is to be based on the "context of the society" in which we live, we all have a right to be part of contributing to the discussion of what our society's context is.
"Today there is."
Nothing conclusive or without alternative explanation.
"The decision was made because all the attempts over the previous forty years to categorize homosexuality as a disease and to "treat" it had failed."
It's a fallacy to say that because a treatment isn't successful, there is no disease.
"So rather than banging their heads against a wall, they looked at the inverse hypothesis, that it is not a disease, and most people's problems disappeared.
Now, people like you and all the fundamentalist family groups view sexual behavior through a fundamentalist Christian lens."
Traditional or orthodox is not the same as fundamentalist. And the lens isn't particularly Christian. Most societies have considered this wrong.
"By that reading, you view it as a sin. Not a disease, but a sin."
Well, actually, I'm not sure if it's a disease. I just don't think there is any basis for deciding either way.
But it seems to me you contradict yourself. On the one hand, it is an uncontrollable impulse, beyond choice. On the other, it is not a disease. Wouldn't an uncontrollable impulse to engage in irrational behavior which is likely to lead to dangerous situations, a disease?
"You're entitled to believe that. You're just not entitled to impose that belief,"
Impose in what way? Allowing free speech? Is that an imposition?
"or to teach it in the public schools."
No one who opposes TTF has suggested teaching whether it is a disease or a sin. The opposition merely states there is no basis for what has been proposed to teach.
"You shouldn't even teach it as science in parochial school,"
I'm not aware of any schools that do teach that as science.
"but that's your business.
So keep to yourself, take advantage of the separation of church and state, and enjoy your life."
Seperation of church and state means the state can't control religious belief. The state has no business trying to stifle any speech.
"When you start meddling in science and public affairs, you will get a response and as has been made quite clear here on this blog over the past two years, you don't have a leg to stand on."
As always, trying to enlist science as a justifier of what is actually an opinion.
oh, I see it was a lie- the APA didn't approve of bestiality- Anon just says they would. Why am I not surprised at Anon lying?
I said they said there was "nothing wrong" with it. They have removed from their list of mental diseases. So, I meant wrong in the sense of disfunctional rather than immoral. Same as they say about homosexuality.
Andrea, you need to get over the habit of calling someone a liar every time you misunderstand them.
Anonymous at November 28, 2006 3:13 PM said "Wouldn't an uncontrollable impulse to engage in irrational behavior which is likely to lead to dangerous situations, a disease?"
Anonymous, you must be talking about your uncontrollable impulse to badmouth gays even though one day you may cross the wrong person to your own detriment. Yes, I'd say you have a disease.
As for gays who have an uncontrollable impulse to love another person of the same sex, that's a beautiful and wonderful thing, just like when two opposite sex people fall in love - something you have obviously never experienced given your bitterness and driving need to verbally assault those who do you no harm.
Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 9:52 AM said "Your own members here have concluded the research didn't exist."
Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 3:13 PM continued "So, when I said that the decision wasn't based on scientific evidence and cilly said it was based on "thousands" of papers, I was right."
That is not true. There are thousands of scientific papers from before the APA decision. As Dana pointed out, the fields of "genetics, molecular biology or cognitive science" were not as advanced in the 1970s as they are now. Not that NARTH or ex-gay "research" literature relies on any of those fields -- even today NARTH still relies mostly on clinical case histories and anecdotes. There are no TTF members who have concluded "research didn't exist" on the human sexuality in the 1970s because such research does exist; there are thousands of studies. Only Anonymouses insist on making that false assertion over and over.
--Anonymous on October 14, 2006 at 12:12 PM said This issue is so politicized that peer research is not reliable. But anyone should wary of conclusions reached in studies where the researchers decided long before what conclusions they wanted. (think 1970s with no studies)
--Anonymous on November 19, 2005 at 6:13 AM said The professions made their value judgment long before any objective research was available.
--Anonymous on November 17, 2005 at 1:18 PM said neither the statement that homosexuality is not a disease nor the statement that homosexuality is not a choice are facts. They are opinions, based on wish fulfillment.
Here's what TTF members and supporters have said:
--Warning, facts ahead on October 14, 2006 at 5:55 PM provided a list of research from the 1970s and earlier that came from Spitzer's bibliography and noted that there were 64 such studies cited in Bieber's 1962 book and 184 in Socarides 1968 book.
Warning noted and I agree The assertion that there had been no studies on this topic by the 1970s when the APA decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM is a lie.
Dana on January 05, 2006 at 10:23 PM told Anon "for the past 100 years psychiatrists and psychologists have been trying to convert gay and trans persons. The literature is replete with all their attempts, from talk therapy to drug therapy to aversion therapy to electroshock and lobotomy. I read many of those studies when I was younger.
The reason the APA dropped homosexuality from the DSM was because of that history of failure. It was overwhelming, so for you to say there is no evidence is absolute nonsense."
Dana on November 17, 2005 at 6:04 PM said What the APA did in 1973 was review all the literature, and conclude there never was any good reason to have labeled the state of being homosexual a disease in the first place. They acknowldged an error.
Christine
Hmmm...maybe it would help if you could describe a little of the rsearch form before 1973 that showed that homosexuality is not a disease. If there were thousands of studies bolstering that contention and none contradicting it, why, five years after the APA decision, did most professional counselors believe the APA decision was wrong? And why, now, decades later, does TTF's own expert on sexuality, Dr Beyer, repeatedly cite the fact that it can't be cured as proof it is not a disease? That would be a logical fallacy, would it not?
Transgender is still listed as a mental disorder.
Anonymous said...
"Transgender is still listed as a mental disorder."
For which appropriate treatment may be the long, careful, elaborate process of gender reassignment surgery. See, for example, http://www.aetna.com/cpb/data/CPBA0615.html
"No, it would not."
Interesting. So sophisticated and articulate experts like Dr D and Jim think that if something can't be cured, it's not a disease. Makes sense- if you're an intelligent person.
I guess then that rabies, AIDS, the common cold, and more- are not TTF's idea of diseases.
Anon, if something can't be cured and it kills you or makes you miserable or interferes with your life in some ways, we may call it a disease. The idea that behavior patterns are diseases -- the "medical model" of mental illness -- is not an especially perfect fit in cases of mild abnormalities such as neuroses. Everyone would agree that schizophrenia is a "disease," not everyone agrees that having a nervous twitch is. Part of the definition will have to do with negative consequences. If there aren't any, why call it a disease?
The point is that these traits we're talking about are very persistent, they are part of the person's personality, AND there's no problem for someone to be gay or to identify with the other gender. It doesn't hurt you in any way. You face it,, you deal with it, and the only negative aspects are in the response you get from the social group.
JimK
Jim:
I completely agree with your first paragraph. Not the second but at least it is logically consistent. We just disagree on whether homosexuality is harmful to oneself.
The Dr was making a fallacious argument, calling me an idiot for pointing it out and implying you agreed with the fallacy as part of the scientific method.
Anonymnous at November 29, 2006 11:53 PM
Anonymous, gayness is no more harmful to a person than heterosexuality. All the major physical and mental health organizations are in agreement on this. They also agree that what's harmful to gay people is the social stigmatization and discrimination that people like you promote. You are the problem, not gayness.
Doctor, I think you need to prescribe yourself something:
"So do we finally have some sort of clarity here?"
Apparently, not.
"Do we agree that sexual orientation does not encompass disease states?"
A trick question. I don't buy the use of the term "orientation" to describe one's preferences. If you're asking does abnormal sexual preference constitute a disease, I'd say it's a philosophical question. I'm not sure what the answer is. Kids shouldn't be taught there is societal consensus on the issue.
"Do we agree that society shouldn't discriminate and stigmatize people on the basis of sexual orientation?"
Tricky. I don't think the government should outlaw discrimination based on preference. People should have freedom of association.
"Is the crux of the matter whether or not homosexuality is harmful "to oneself"?"
It might be the crux of whether it's a disease.
"If we agree on this, then I would call that progress."
I just shook up my eight ball and it said "hard to see".
"Anonymous, gayness is no more harmful to a person than heterosexuality."
Depends on your definition of harm.
"All the major physical and mental health organizations are in agreement on this."
Do I have to go into all the weird stuff they say the same thing about?
"They also agree that what's harmful to gay people is the social stigmatization and discrimination that people like you promote."
Stigmatization? Give me a break. They practically give out awards. I was in Roanoke last year and picked up a local paper. Front page was a section they called "interesting person of the month". The current one was some gay guy who started a support group for gays. And this is in the middle of hillbilly country.
You are the problem, not gayness.
Oops. I forgot the quote marks around the sentence.
"My point was that once we get agreement on this point, we have gone beyond most of the nonsense the right wing has posted on this blog."
Well, I'm only one person. Why would my opinion have any bearing on any other people who believe in responsible curriculum?
"If Anon feels that being gay is harmful to himself, he should deal with that issue. He should not be arguing the science, of which he knows nothing."
Most of what I say, is repeated from scientists I've read. Just like the TTFers. It doesn't matter though- when your argument is simply, "he doesn't know what he's talking about", it goes to show you don't have much of a case. It's just an assertion not an argument.
The doctor has been showing some logical inconsistency lately. Beside the ridiculous statement that only diseases that can be cured are real diseases, the Dr has been using homosexuality and ttansgender interchangably and then lashing out at anyone who goes along with it.
"He should not be involved in arguing about school curricula either."
Oh, democracy is troublesome. What form of government would we prefer as an alternative?
"He should visit a therapist who can help him or anyone else explore why they believe it would be harmful to them. Beyond that, one's sexual orientation is one's personal business,"
Which is why it shouldn't be taught to kids.
"and scoiety should be welcoming of all who do not do harm to others. This acknowledgement of his obviates the remarks of the Dobsonites that this personal issue signals the end of western civilization and all that, along with natural law theology, discussion of the Pope's dress and interior decorator, etc."
It's broadly acknowldged that civilization is strengthened by a bias in favor of traditional families, headed by a male-female partnership.
Anonymous at November 30, 2006 8:55 PM said " I don't buy the use of the term "orientation" to describe one's preferences.".
So in other words you yourself aren't heterosexually oriented, you merely have a preference for the opposite sex. That you prefer the opposite sex implies that you have a secondary desire for the same sex, that explains a lot.
You come here every day to badmouth gays and then you want to claim there's no stigmatization - that'd be funny if it wasn't so heinous. That a few people honour gays doesn't undo the stigmatization efforts of a majority made up of people like you. You continually associate being gay with bestiality and then you deny stigmatization exists, you're a pathetic hypocrit.
You said "Most of what I say, is repeated from scientists I've read.".
Horse feathers, the anti-gay religious fanatics you get quotes from aren't scientists, religious degrees don't count. You have yet to show a link to the APA showing what you claim they said about bestiality.
You said "Beyond that, one's sexual orientation is one's personal business. Which is why it shouldn't be taught to kids."
Wrong. Just because something is personal doesn't mean kids don't need to know about it. Sex itself is personal but kids still need to be educated about it. Hygiene, clothing, exercise, mental and physical health are all personal, its crazy to think for that reason they shouldn't be taught to kids.
You said "It's broadly acknowldged that civilization is strengthened by a bias in favor of traditional families, headed by a male-female partnership. "
Traditional families aren't male-female partnerships, they're male dominated. Society doesn't need to oppress and stigmatize gays in order to support heterosexual families. The more individuals society supports (including gays) the stronger society is.
"Traditional families aren't male-female partnerships, they're male dominated. Society doesn't need to oppress and stigmatize gays in order to support heterosexual families. The more individuals society supports (including gays) the stronger society is."
Bullshit.
He who makes the most money wears the pants.
And tomboys who refuse to wear dresses
Anonymous, you just keep contradicting obvious reality and maybe it'll make you feel better. No one is going to believe you when you deny what we all know to be true - traditional society is male dominated. The idea of male female relationships as an equal partnership is a modern idea, one that never existed in the past in any society.
Post a Comment
<< Home