Friday, January 05, 2007

The Gazette Reports

Yesterday I got a flurry of calls from reporters, after the Wednesday-night unveiling of the new curriculum, and after MCPS briefed journalists on the new material. I pretty much told them all what I blogged yesterday. The eighth and tenth grade curricula are really good, but I'm afraid the Superintendent's office may have backed down where they should have been firm; they should have included the medical establishment's statements.

Actually, a couple of the reporters, having seen the documentation of what committee proposals were accepted and what was rejected, brought up the topic themselves -- it jumped out at them, you might say, that these were pretty big suggestions that were shot down.

After years of excellent reporting on the Montgomery County sex-ed controversy at The Gazette, we understand that Sean Sedam has been promoted and they have assigned a new reporter to this story, Marcus Moore. Welcome, Marcus. This morning's story was co-authored by the two of them. Excerpts:
The Montgomery County school board will meet Tuesday to vote on a revised sex education curriculum that overhauls a controversial video on condom usage and lessons on sexual orientation.

Some advocates applauded the changes, while others say the revised video and lesson plans are still a little too raunchy for middle and high school students.

"I think they did a nice job, but it still introduces anal and oral sex to the kids," said Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. Montgomery board to vote on sex ed lessons

This last comment is a little ironic, as the CRC has insisted all along on teaching more about anal sex in the classroom. I guess they figure they can win either way. If there's nothing, they will complain that the classes don't warn about the health risks of being gay, and if there's anything, they will complain, as they do here, that the schools are teaching students about anal sex.

For the record, the only mention of anal sex is during the condom video, which mentions that the condom should be used for vaginal, anal, and oral sex. This is standard government-web-site advice, mainstream medical advice, nothing "raunchy" about it.
School board members were briefed and watched the video before Christmas.

"I think staff did a fabulous job," said board member Patricia B. O’Neill (Dist. 3) of Bethesda. "... I think it is viewpoint-neutral. It’s 21st century health curriculum for 21st century students. ... I think there is consensus and a feeling that we should move forward with this pilot."

Board President Nancy Navarro (Dist. 5) of Silver Spring said she had spoken to four board colleagues.

"Everyone seems pretty much on board," Navarro said.

"I think it is a balanced proposal," she said. "I believe it’s a step in the right direction."

OK, good news, it sounds like the school board will probably vote to adopt the new material.
"The revisions are really good," said James Kennedy, president of TeachtheFacts.org and a member of the advisory panel. "I think they did a good job of pulling it together, but the superintendent’s office was overly cautious."

Members of the 15-member Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development were briefed Wednesday night on the curriculum revisions.

At the committee’s suggestion, the video now has narrators of both sexes and includes information on how to properly store, open and discard condoms.

The curriculum, however, still does not reference ex-homosexuals.

"As a physician, I’m terribly disappointed in [the lesson] not mentioning ex-gays," said Ruth Jacobs, an infectious disease physician in Rockville who represents CRC on the advisory panel. "I think it’s discrimination. I think it reflects bias. I’ve been concerned about bias on the committee."

Well, first of all, I believe I said "might have been overly cautious." Second, it would have been nice if they'd mentioned what I thought they were overly cautious about, or if they had mentioned that nearly the entire committee felt the same way. Oh well.

And that last thing ... what does being a physician have to do with "ex-gays?" Does Ruth Jacobs, as a physician, see a lot of "ex-gays?" Did she learn about "ex-gays" in medical school?

Or is she trying to link her authority as a physician to her ideological belief that gay people should go back into the closet?

I'm just asking.

I feel I should comment on the use of the word "however" in this sentence: The curriculum, however, still does not reference ex-homosexuals. The citizens committee did not ask for the inclusion of anything about "ex-gays," in fact, when the topic came up is was voted down by a huge majority. There's no "however" necessary there -- the committee had not asked for the topic to be included, that's all.
O’Neill said she did not think the curriculum needed to mention ex-gays.

"I don’t believe it would be appropriate to be in there," she said. "Personally I don’t believe that it is a fact-based position. I think this is a thorough, medically based comprehensive curriculum."

Peter Sprigg, who represents PFOX on the advisory panel, disagreed with the curriculum’s use of the term "homophobia" because it "creates the illusion that it is a scientific term."

PFOX contends homosexuality is a choice people make and can abandon.

The word appears in an excerpt of a textbook that critics say is biased in presenting sexual orientation.

Sprigg had recommended the term be scrapped from the curriculum, but the advisory committee voted against his proposal. If the word is included, it needs clarification.

"I would urge the board of education to reject the staff proposal as it is at this time," Sprigg said.

Well, he's got to say that. That's why he was put on the committee.

In case you haven't been following this story, Peter Sprigg was assigned to the committee to represent PFOX as a consequence of a legal settlement agreement. CRC and PFOX were opposed to everything the majority of the citizens advisory committee (and the majority of the County) wanted; of course they don't think this proposal should be accepted. This was inevitable in the way the committee was set up.
In May 2005, a federal judge ruled that teacher resource materials, which were not to be presented to students, were objectionable because they unfairly singled out specific religious denominations for their condemnation of homosexuality.

A line in an assignment for eighth-graders echoes that finding.

"Just as stereotyping others based on sexuality is not an acceptable behavior, stereotyping others based on personal beliefs also is not acceptable," reads part of an assignment that asks students to reflect on stereotyping based on sexual orientation, appearance and mannerisms.

Yes ... it is not acceptable to stereotype bigots, Mwahahahahoohoohee.

By the way, this being a new reporter and all, let me note something here. The CRC and PFOX represent a nearly-nonexistent tiny minority in Montgomery County. But in this story, I count eleven paragraphs that give voice to CRC and PFOX views on the curriculum. There is one paragraph quoting somebody from TeachTheFacts.org (me), and the rest is history and quotes from officials.

It may be colorful, for instance when people say the schools "introduce anal and oral sex to the kids," but the distorted thinking represented by CRC and PFOX does not reflect the values of our community. It's fine to present both sides of a controversy, but it would seem to make sense if the balance reflected the makeup of the County, not the shrillness of the absurd accusations some people make.

The country has turned a corner. The misconstruals and absurdities have been voted out at the national level, and were soundly drummed out here in Montgomery County, as well. There's no need to pander to the radicals.

28 Comments:

Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

The article said "PFOX contends homosexuality is a choice people make and can abandon.".

This is a lie and Peter Sprigg admitted as much on his blog entry here. He acknowledge here that people don't choose to have same sex attractions yet here is PFOX claiming its a choice. The say one thing when pressed, but tell the public completely the opposite whenever they get the chance. I despise these people.

January 05, 2007 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whether people have a choice about what feelings they develop is in the realm of metaphysics. You may want to absolve yourself of responsibility for your choices but don't project this preference on others and please don't suggest we in this county and country teach kids the misleading idea that they have no choice but to surrender to something that in the perspective of many represents temptation.

You have no basis for calling anyone a liar on this matter.

January 05, 2007 4:00 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, no one chooses their feelings or sexuality. Sprigg admitted as much in his blog entry on this site. PFox contending that "homosexuality is a choice people make and can abandon" is a lie.

You will never find a person that describes a time when they had no sexual desires, they conciously weighed the pros and cons of being attracted to either sex, made a decision to be attracted to one of them, and immediately developed an attraction to that sex. It NEVER happens. You know yourself you didn't choose your sexual attractions, it just happened. Its a lie for you to say you have any reaon to believe it is any different for anyone else - that's preposterous.

January 05, 2007 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Schimnosky:

I'm afraid your view is simplistic and unsophisticated. I don't think you'll find anyone who wants to engage in a discussion with you as long as you continue to direct epithets at other participants.

Our country is a moderate and tolerant one and we avoid the tactics of radicals, which, unfortunately, often include calling those with viewpoints different than their own, "liars".

We always welcome the input of those, like yourself, from other countries but please respect our culture and try to maintain a civil decorum.

Thank you very much!

January 05, 2007 5:25 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

"Yes ... it is not acceptable to stereotype bigots, Mwahahahahoohoohee."

So anyone with a religous belief is a bigot, Jim ?

Is that really what you just said ?

Now who is exhibiting lack of tolerance ?

January 05, 2007 7:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa,

If you want a good laugh, go back to a couple of days before the Judge threw out the last proposed curriculum. Jim used that same "Mwahahahahoohoohee" thing in a post about how the proposed curriculum was a done deal.

I'm feeling deja vu all over again.

I'm encouraged that we've been heard about the inappropriateness of using the statements of professional associations to mislead the kids.

I also can't believe that this new proposed curriculum that actively encourages kids to come out as gay will ultimately fly.

January 05, 2007 7:51 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, you're the one who said anyone with a religious belief is a bigot. I didn't.

I mean, I know you guys like to put words in my mouth, but ...

The reason this is here, as you well know, is so gay-haters' widdew feewings don't get hewt. They want to be able to stereotype gays without being stereotyped themselves. Fine, put it in there. People see what's going on.

JimK

January 05, 2007 7:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Of course I went back and looked. In May 2005, shortly before the suers sued, I did use that Mwahaha thing, right HERE.

I was talking about the ironic effect of the MCPS rule that says parents can sit in on a class only if they have a child in that class. They were getting ready to pilot test the new cirriculum, and the CRC ("Ex-Recall") types couldn't stand it, they just had to go into the classroom to see what was going to happen, but none of them would let their kids take the class.

I said: The irony here comes in several layers. First of all, you have to actually be the parent of an MCPS student to attend the sex-ed classes and monitor what's going on -- and the Ex-Recall group is not made up mostly of public school parents. Secondly, and most delicious -- if they opt their children out of the curriculum, as they promise to do, they'll never get to see what secret mysteries are taught behind the closed doors of those classrooms! Mwahahaha! They'll just hate that!

Well, hey, I've got an idea. They can burn up even more taxpayers' dollars by filing another lawsuit, so they can attend any class they want, whenever they want, to make sure the rest of us live up to a sufficiently high moral standard.


I still think that was pretty good.

JimK

January 05, 2007 8:10 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

Your slander of Randi is despicable. And, yes, Peter admitted that sexual orientation is not a choice on this blog, so he is either lying now or lied before when he wrote that response to Matthew.

January 05, 2007 11:50 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at January 05, 2007 5:25 PM

Anonymous, the fact of the matter is as Dana said, either Sprigg is lying now or he was lying then. There's no way arounnd it, he's a liar. And your in no position to be talking about civil decorum and politiness when you continue to refer to me as a he when I've repeatedly told you I'm a she.

January 06, 2007 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

Your slander of Randi is despicable."

?

"And, yes, Peter admitted that sexual orientation is not a choice on this blog, so he is either lying now or lied before when he wrote that response to Matthew."

He said specifically that the statement "sexual orientation is not a choice" was an ambiguous statement. He did say that sexual attraction was not a choice but he didn't explain or elaborate and at some level anybody would agree. Same would apply to every feeling but there are choices you make that can lead to other inclinations and you can choose upon reflection to discard certain feelings if you have stronger feelings about the problems they cause.

"Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, the fact of the matter is as Dana said, either Sprigg is lying now or he was lying then. There's no way arounnd it, he's a liar."

If you've read his statement, then you're either ignorant or a propagandist.

"And your in no position to be talking about civil decorum and politiness when you continue to refer to me as a he when I've repeatedly told you I'm a she."

You have told us you're a she, but, contradictorially, I believe you've also told us you were a male who wanted to be a female and had himself surgically altered to appear to be one (correct me if if I have you mixed up with someone else). If you want to engage in that fantasy, feel free but don't expect the rest of us to participate. The dictionary says a female is someone of the gender that noramlly carries a fertilizable egg and bears offspring. I myself will refer to people by their chromosomes. If you've got a Y, you're a guy.

January 09, 2007 10:45 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 10, 2007 1:19 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "[Sprigg] said specifically that the statement "sexual orientation is not a choice" was an ambiguous statement.".

Anonymous, you're a liar as well -Sprigg said no such thing. He erroneously said sexual orientation is made up of attractions, behavior, and identity, in direct conflict with the generally accepted understanding of sexual orientation which refers simply to the sex(es) one is attracted to. If you'll check the dictionary you'll also see that homosexuality refers to the state of being same sex attracted. Sprigg unambibuously said "I do not believe, and I do not know anyone who believes, that same-gender sexual attractions or desires are a “choice.”". When PFOX then turns around and says "homosexuality is a choice people make and can abandon", its a lie any way you slice it.

Anonymous said "you can choose upon reflection to discard certain feelings if you have stronger feelings about the problems they cause.".

That's ridiculous. People don't choose their feelings and can't choose not to experience them. The studies by Shidlo and Shroeder and Spitzer showed that in the overwhelming majority of cases people cannot, despite their best efforts, choose not to be gay.

Anonymous, if you want to continue insulting me by referring to me as a "he" I can't stop you, but it makes a mockery of your disingenous talk of moderation, tolerance, respect, and civil decorum. You've just exposed yourself as the hypocrite you are.

January 10, 2007 1:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you're going to make up your own definition of male and female, why should anyone listen to you about anything else?

All feelings start as a spark. At that point, depending on one's appreciation about the implications of the feeling, one can resist or develop them. Of course, there may come a point of exceedingly difficult return to normality, but it doesn't take away the factor of choice. Remember all the studies you cite that show some biological reaction or anatomical feature associated with homosexuality? None of were replicated, but assuming the data is valid, then one must account for the fact that these factors don't have 100% correlation. This is likely because they represent an inclination to homosexuality that has been successfully resisted- by choice.

Spitzer said in 2001 that his studies showed that "highly motivated" individuals can overcome same sex attraction syndrome. Of course, he was attacked, pressured and disavowed for this horrid affront to political correctness. Far from being partisan, however, Spitzer was the person who first proposed removing homosexuality from APA's list of mental illnesses in the 70s.

Well, maybe he had no choice what to write.

January 10, 2007 2:14 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at January 10, 2007 2:14 PM said "If you're going to make up your own definition of male and female, why should anyone listen to you about anything else?".

You don't need to take my word for it, you can check Sprigg's words here:

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2006/11/peters-epistle-to-matthew.html

You said "[Sprigg] said specifically that the statement "sexual orientation is not a choice" was an ambiguous statement.".

No where in there did he make that statement - if your're going to lie, why should anyone listen to you about anything else? In there you will also see he unambiguously said "I do not believe, and I do not know anyone who believes, that same-gender sexual attractions or desires are a “choice.”". You are virtually alone in making this absurd statement.

Anonymous said "All feelings start as a spark. At that point, depending on one's appreciation about the implications of the feeling, one can resist or develop them. Of course, there may come a point of exceedingly difficult return to normality, but it doesn't take away the factor of choice."

That's not what people report. Virgins report powerful sexual attractions. Where are the people that say they experienced trivial desires as virgins that grew overwheliming with sexual experience? They don't exist. My experience was the opposite of that. You yourself have failed to describe a step by step experience of choosing your sexual desires, because you know in your heart you didn't. The sex drive isn't a whimsical desire like wanting to wear blue clothes when you get up - its powerful and innate just like the desire to sleep when you're tired. One cannot significantly diminish the desire for sleep merely by resisting it and the same is largely true for sex. If most virgins experinced only fleeting sexual attractions which grow or diminish dependent on choice there'd be a lot more life-time virgins around. That virtually no one is a virgin for life is testament to the strength of sexual attraction regardless of sexual experience.

Anonymous said "Remember all the studies you cite that show some biological reaction or anatomical feature associated with homosexuality? None of were replicated, but assuming the data is valid, then one must account for the fact that these factors don't have 100% correlation. This is likely because they represent an inclination to homosexuality that has been successfully resisted- by choice."

No, this is evidence of the complicated nature of sexual attraction, that not just one, but that many interacting genes are involved as well as other biological processes.

Anonymous said "Spitzer said in 2001 that his studies showed that "highly motivated" individuals can overcome same sex attraction syndrome."

Spitzer said SOME highly motivated
individuals may be able to change orientations - that's a huge difference from what you said. He specifically said this DOES NOT mean any highly motivated individual can change orientations. He has expressed concern that his study has been misrepresented by religionists. He further said that he doubts that most gays could successfully alter their orientation by much if at all. He said he believed maybe 3% of gays might be able to do so and the numbers relevant to his study indicate that far fewer than that are likely able to do so.

An estimated 250,000 "reparitive therapy" clients were available to have been selected for his study. Despite this it took 2 years for him to come up with 200 merely claiming to have changed. That indicates an overwhelming failure rate, much greater than the 97% failure rate he indicated.

January 10, 2007 5:11 PM  
Blogger digger said...

Anonymous said:

"Far from being partisan, however, Spitzer was the person who first proposed removing homosexuality from APA's list of mental illnesses in the 70s."

This is a canard promoted by those who use Spitzer's study to promote the ex-gay movement, that Spitzer was a pro-gay physician who changed his mind about ex-gays. Spitzer in fact proposed and inacted that homosexuality be replaced by "ego-dystonic homosexuality", with the notion that people who didn't like being gay could change that. Spitzer's opinions have been the same on this topic for more than 30 years.

rrjr

January 11, 2007 1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said "Remember all the studies you cite that show some biological reaction or anatomical feature associated with homosexuality? None of were replicated, but assuming the data is valid, then one must account for the fact that these factors don't have 100% correlation. This is likely because they represent an inclination to homosexuality that has been successfully resisted- by choice."

No, this is evidence of the complicated nature of sexual attraction, that not just one, but that many interacting genes are involved as well as other biological processes."

Your theory is a possibility, Randi, but there is no evidence to support it. You simply have chosen what to believe.

The theory of choice works just as well.

January 12, 2007 11:25 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "The theory of choice works just as well."

Except it doesn't. That theory is contradicted by the overwhelming failure of the "exgay" industry and the reports of the overwhelming majority of straights and gays alike, that they did not choose their orientation, and that powerful sex drives simply appeared, PRIOR to any sexual experience. And again, that you yourself have failed to give a convincing step by step account of your own experience in "choosing" your sexuality strongly suggests you don't even believe its a choice yourself.

January 12, 2007 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Except it doesn't. That theory is contradicted by the overwhelming failure of the "exgay" industry"

That failure is your claim. These ministries don't report this. I've met some of these people before.

"and the reports of the overwhelming majority of straights and gays alike, that they did not choose their orientation, and that powerful sex drives simply appeared, PRIOR to any sexual experience."

I don't think straights choose their sexual orientation. It comes natural. I think it might be different for gays. I think it might be they consciously rejected normality at some point.

As for what gays say, they haven't always. This is part of the current gay dogma these days. Anyone who dares to disagree is ostracized. In many ways, the homosexual movement is like a cult.

"And again, that you yourself have failed to give a convincing step by step account of your own experience in "choosing" your sexuality strongly suggests you don't even believe its a choice yourself."

Or that I'm not idiotic or exhibitionist enough to discuss such a thing on the internet.

Heterosexuality, as I've said, is our natural, created state.

If you want some "step-by-step" from ex-gays as to how they got into it and out of it though, Exodus and PFOX have these testimonies available online.

January 12, 2007 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course conversion ministries don't admit their failures. They have money to make and realize they won't attract paying customers if they admit their high rate of failure. Admitting the high percentage of failure of their "treatments" to bring about change in sexual orientation would likely cause even the most ardent homophobes to stop paying for their kids' attempted conversions.

And of course these ministries post "testimonials" rather than objective empirical data. It's easy fake a testimonial but it's difficult to hide or fake evidence of sexual arousal.

This is why the subjects in the Spitzer study are so suspect. They were mostly people who worked for these ministries so they had financial interests in influencing the outcome of the study. Spitzer's choice of telephone interviews made it easy for these mininstry workers to lie about their behavior and feelings. Objective measurements of arousal would go far to assess the truth about the gender of the people conversion ministry subjects find sexually attactive.

PTA

January 13, 2007 10:59 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

... It's easy fake a testimonial ...

It's not only easy to fake, but it often ... maybe always ... happens that someone gives their testimonial on a good day, really believing they've changed, and then after awhile the glory wears off. Maybe they meet someone, I don't know what happens, but you can only lie to Mother Nature for so long.

Like, look at THIS very typical story.

JimK

January 13, 2007 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's easy fake a testimonial but it's difficult to hide or fake evidence of sexual arousal."

Yes, it is, PTA. And yet that's what most studies saying you can't change are based on. The whole problem with any study in this area is that it relies on subjective self-reporting.

Hate to burst your world-view bubble but it's also easy to fake any scientific data. Even in peer reviewed studies, no one confirms that the data is valid. It's can easily be made up.

It's a moot point now, since science has now found an abundant supply of stem cells without destroying human life, but we all remember when the greatest success of embryonic research was discovered to have been based on fradulent data a couple of years ago. Thank heavens George Bush stood fast against the dismemberment of human embryos until science caught up with morality.

January 13, 2007 12:09 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "Heterosexuality, as I've said, is our natural, created state.".

Of course you don't have any evidence to back this up or reason to believe it. The fact that gays have existed throughout history across all societies and the ratio of gays to straights has never been shown to vary with different situations (as would be the case if it was a choice) proves a small percentage of people are made this way. This is also confirmed by the unrefuted fact that homosexuality is common throughout nature. Clearly nature intended for some individuals to be gay.

If people could choose to be gay then obviously heterosexuality wouldn't the natural created state for all. Then it would be natural for some to choose and be gay. If heterosexuality was the natural created state then all would be heterosexual.

Anonymous said "If you want some "step-by-step" from ex-gays as to how they got into it and out of it though, Exodus and PFOX have these testimonies available online."
Yes, I've heard many of these "testimonials" and none of them gave a step by step explanation of their experience in choosing to be gay. These "testimonials" are loaded with ambiguous double-talk about change in terms of spirituality and when pressed they all admit they mean change in behavior, not change in orientation.

If there were any truth to all these testimonials about change being change in orientation they'd be running to researchers demanding to take penis volume measurement tests to prove they've changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions as they deceptively encourage people to believe. They aren't, because all the double talk about change doesn't mean a change in orientation it means a change in behavior and self-labels. I've seen the same lies and double-talk out of Exodus and PFox over and over.

January 13, 2007 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi said- Of course you don't have any evidence to back this up or reason to believe it. The fact that gays have existed throughout history across all societies and the ratio of gays to straights has never been shown to vary with different situations

This is so far from the truth it is a joke. There has been huge shifts in the straight to gay ratio through out history from the Spartans who all engaged in homosexual behavior to the indigenous people of South America and the Aztecs who had no homosexuals and no prostitutes. So from a historical perspective homosexual is more about society than biology.

January 15, 2007 12:33 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, engaging in gay behavior temporarily doesn't make one gay and the Spartans most certainly weren't all gay. They encouraged same sex relationships amongst their warriors because they believed a man would never fight so hard as he would for the one he loved and to avoid being embarrassed in front of the one he loved.

In any society like this that pressured gay behavior we find that when left to their own devices people returned to heterosexuality and basically the same 5% or so remained gay.

Organizations like Exodus insist that absent fathers produce gay sons, but if this were the case there would have been a huge spike in the number of gays during WWII when so many fathers were away. That there wasn't shows that the sociatal theory of the creation of gays is bunk.

The indigenous people of south america and the Aztecs most assuredly had their share of gays. Even in countries like Iran which kill gays we see gays, they don't go away under any circumstances. That there may not be any records of them proves nothing.

January 15, 2007 1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That there may not be any records of them proves nothing."

Well, it does prove one thing: that you are making assertions without any evidence.

January 15, 2007 4:27 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

You don't have any evidence that being gay is about society rather than biology. If this were true than the "exgay" programs wouldn't be the overwhelming failure they are. The existence of gays throughout all societies and across all history not to mention amongst hundreds of species of animals is all solid evidence that its biological.

January 15, 2007 8:21 PM  
Anonymous Phentermine said...

Nice design of blog.

August 13, 2007 3:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home