New Sex-Ed Coming in DC
Interesting article in The Blade about the new sex-ed curriculum in the District of Columbia.
You can read the draft curriculum HERE.
It's interesting that The Blade expresses disappointment that the curriculum fails to note that homosexuality is not an illness. Over here in MoCo, we almost had that problem, too, but Superintendent Jerry Weast added some wording at the last moment that addressed this problem. Actually, the best interpretation is probably that Montgomery County set a new standard, which DC is being compared against. Some psychologists call this "the ratchet effect."
On the other hand, sixth-graders in Washington will be introduced to an inclusive perspective of sexuality, while our sixth graders are still going to be kept in the dark about variations in sexual orientation and gender identity.
And dude, let me tell you, having just gone through this whole thing on the citizens advisory committee, this is a slow bureaucratic process.
Somehow I can't imagine the CRC opening up a DC chapter. Heh. Just can't picture that, no.
Proposed new standards for developing health and sex education curricula for the District of Columbia Public Schools call for teaching eighth grade students that some "feel romantically and/or sexually attracted" to people of the same gender.
The 43-page draft document, Health Learning Standards, also calls for teaching sixth grade students that "people, regardless of biological sex, gender, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity and culture, have sexual feeling and the need for love, affection and physical intimacy."
But the proposed standards stop short of giving D.C. public school teachers permission to inform students that the American Psychiatric and Psychological associations and the medical establishment consider homosexuality to be a normal variation of human sexuality. D.C. drafts gay-inclusive sex ed plan: Gay Standards silent on conclusion that homosexuality is not an illness
You can read the draft curriculum HERE.
It's interesting that The Blade expresses disappointment that the curriculum fails to note that homosexuality is not an illness. Over here in MoCo, we almost had that problem, too, but Superintendent Jerry Weast added some wording at the last moment that addressed this problem. Actually, the best interpretation is probably that Montgomery County set a new standard, which DC is being compared against. Some psychologists call this "the ratchet effect."
On the other hand, sixth-graders in Washington will be introduced to an inclusive perspective of sexuality, while our sixth graders are still going to be kept in the dark about variations in sexual orientation and gender identity.
Last month, Montgomery County, Md., public school officials gave final approval to a controversial, gay-inclusive sex education program that allows teachers to tell students who ask that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder or mental illness.
The proposed D.C. school standards cover a wide range of health-related issues aimed at students from kindergarten to grade 10, with specific gay-related topics starting in the sixth grade.
School officials said the proposed standards are not the same as a school curriculum and that a new sex education and health curriculum would be developed in the near future based on parameters set by the standards.
And dude, let me tell you, having just gone through this whole thing on the citizens advisory committee, this is a slow bureaucratic process.
The standards include instruction on "disease prevention and treatment" that cover AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Sexual abstinence is recommended, but the standards also call for informing students in upper grades that the use of condoms is important for those who are sexually active.
"Reflecting a strong consensus among educators, these standards establish high expectations for all students," states an introduction to the draft document. "They detail the knowledge and skills that students need to maintain and improve their health and wellness, prevent disease and reduce health-related risk behaviors."
Somehow I can't imagine the CRC opening up a DC chapter. Heh. Just can't picture that, no.
posted by JimK at 8:51 AM
7 Comments:
I could imagine a DC version of CRC. There are plenty of people both in and out of DCPS who don't care for queers all that much.
Navarro, O”Neill and Cox get Board Sued Again!
Citizens for Responsible Curriculum (CRC), Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) and Family Leader Network have filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,Case Number 284980 as a result of the sex ed indoctrination curriculum passed by the BOE earlier this year. The parents groups are represented by the Thomas More Law Center a Catholic legal group. Sharon Cox and Pat O’ Neill must be joyous as they got what they wanted, another lawsuit against the BOE. Cox and O’Neill taunted the groups with statements like “bring it on” during BOE meetings. Win or lose this lawsuit will cost taxpayers big bucks which could be used to help special needs children or support other programs.
The lawsuit claims that the BOE has put students at risk with phony science about condoms being “safe” for anal sex, in spite of the fact the condom manufacturers themselves state on the condom box that they are not to be used for anal sex. (When will the parents start suing for children when they contract AIDS, and other stds? Hopefully, each of the board members and Weast will be sued personally by trial lawyers for tort claims) Also, the unproven claim that homosexual conduct is “innate” and that no one can change their orientation, despite all the exgays walking around including several who testified at the BOE. Also, the teaching that its wonderful to come out as a transgender, chop off body parts, take powerful drugs so that boys become girls and girls become boys. This despite the fact that Gender Identity Disorder is a condition found in the DSM-IV. How can the BOE encourage students to behave in a disordered fashion?
There are lots of other reasons in the lawsuit, but I don’t have room to put them all here.
By the way, if the BOE encourages a boy to become a girl, a heterosexual to become homosexual, then why not a homosexual to become heterosexual? Stay tuned.
Re Anonymous: "Navarro, O”Neill and Cox get Board Sued Again!"
Would you be the "Not Jerry Weast" of the CRC's blog, or just a plagiarizing parrot?
http://www.jerryweast.com/ (via the CRC website)
JIMK's article above quotes a portion of the the DC sex-ed curricula as:
"people, regardless of biological sex, gender, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity and culture, have sexual feeling and the need for love, affection and physical intimacy."
I'll assume then that you also agree with the rest of the CRC'S blog postings when they state that:
"John Garza responds to Allan Lichtman op ed
Lichman wants to open the door to “sexual orientation.” But not all 30 orientations found in the DSM-IV-R such as Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump of an amputee; Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces; Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing; Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement; not to mention pedophila, necrophilia and many others are discussed, yet.
When will we hear about these? We believe if you want to discuss orientation, put them all on the table. We don’t want our children to be ignorant. After all, Sexual Identity Disorder is celebrated in the curriculum by Portia."
___
You and the CRC equate the human desire to love and be loved with the sexual arousal to human excrement, and yet you continue to wonder why you shouldn't be in charge of teaching everyone else's children about sex?
That kind of delusion itself warrants a diagnostic disorder.
Not to mention the belief that that the human need to love an be loved is equal to fecal matter -- and the obsession to teach that belief to schoolchildren.
Oh goodie. The suers find a friend in the Thomas More Law Center, the folks who defended the teaching of ID in Dover, PA and received this feedback from Judge Jones:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
The Maryland State Board of Education's decision found every one of the suers' legal arguments against MCPS's health education curriculum had no merit. Even after being told none of their arguments had merit, the suers continue to press forward.
Frivolous litigation is a legal claim or defense presented even though the party and the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense had no merit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation
I hope justice will prevail this time and MCPS will get its $36K back from those who insist on wasting time and resources.
Judge Jones:
"The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop"
OMG, this truly is Dover all over.
One would think that they at least would have gotten the "intelligence" portion of ID down after that trial. Especially when it comes to deciding to file suit against a "factual backdrop."
Anonymous said "condom manufacturers themselves state on the condom box that they are not to be used for anal sex."
Ridiculous, the boxes say no such thing. The condoms may not be guarenteed protection but to suggest they not be used at all is just foolish.
Anonymous said "Also, the unproven claim that homosexual conduct is “innate” and that no one can change their orientation, despite all the exgays walking around including several who testified at the BOE.
The studies by Shidlo and Schroeder and Spitzer show it virtually no one can change orientation. Those so called "exgays" have merely changed their behavior and not their orientation. People being paid to be "exgay" can't be trusted to be telling the truth about their orientation. And being gay is innate. Studies show that same chromosone deactivation in a mother makes her far more likely to have a gay son, the more older brothers a boy has the more likely he is to be gay, brain stuctures in gay males are similar to brain structures in heterosexual females, gays have different finger print patterns than heterosexuals, gays have different finger lengths than heterosexuals,gay males have similar eyeblink rates, hearing, and startle responses to heterosexual females, gay males react to straight male pheremones in the same way as heteroeseuxal females, gay males have similar linguistic abilities to straight females, lesbians have similar math and spatial relations abilities to straight males, gays have different finger lenghts from straights, and on and on. Taken together the conclusion from these studies is inescapable - being gay is innate.
And don't forget the rest of God's creatures...
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
James Owen in London
for National Geographic News
July 23, 2004
Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter.
Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thing—sex between a male and female.
But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.
Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.
Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.
Filmmakers recently went in search of homosexual wild animals as part of a National Geographic Ultimate Explorer documentary about the female's role in the mating game. (The film, Girl Power, will be screened in the U.S this Saturday at 8 p.m. ET, 5 p.m PT on MSNBC TV.)
The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.
Continues at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
Post a Comment
<< Home