Friday, September 21, 2007

Innateness, Immutability, and CRC Distortion

The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum have a shadow web site that they link to under several names, none of which I'm going to give here. Sometimes there's offensive, ignorant stuff they are dying to say, but somewhere down deep inside they know how ridiculous it sounds, so they put it on a different web site than their official one, and link to it. I take it as a good sign, they do know when they are being offensive, and they know that people can tell. They can't control their impulses so they do it on the down low.

If it's any surprise, the domain is registered to the same guy who registered the old RecallMontgomerySchoolBoard.com, as well as the current official CRC web site.

So now they've put up a new statement, trying to tie the recent ruling against marriage equality to the MCPS sex-ed curriculum. I'm going to take one piece of this idiocy for now (don't worry, there's more than one meal in the oven), just the first two paragraphs.
Weast and Nancy Navarro must be sick about the landmark decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals. As reportedhere on June 14th, Weast, Navarro and the rest of the Board, except Steve Abrams voted to sneak into the unconstitutional sex ed curriculum a statement that homosexual conduct is “innate.” At the hearing, parents pointed out that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of a “gay gene.” Weast and the Board refused to listen to the parents and boldly proclaimed that the gay gene exists and homosexual conduct is most assuredly “innate.”

It's pretty hard to be sneaky when you're sitting in a crowded boardroom, surrounded by people with signs and TV cameras, with your image and every word you say streaming out on the worldwide web and live television.

The wording that sexual orientation is "innate" has been in the curriculum since it was first proposed by the team of pediatricians. The Superintendent's office and all their lawyers discussed it and decided to keep it, the citizens advisory committee discussed it and kept it, the school board read it, talked about it, and kept it. The CRC is whining because on the day of the final vote some wording used in the the tenth grade class was added to the eighth grade class, to make them consistent.

Here, they start out talking about the word "innate," and then seem to think they're really hitting hard when they say, At the hearing, parents pointed out that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of a “gay gene.” Because to them, "innate" and "gay gene" are the same thing.

Oh, love this: Weast and the Board refused to listen to the parents and boldly proclaimed that the gay gene exists and homosexual conduct is most assuredly “innate.”

No, that little sentence has two lies, very efficient. They never said there was a "gay gene," never mind "boldly proclaiming" it. And neither Weast nor the school board said a thing about "homosexual conduct" being innate. Nothing is said anywhere in the whole curriculum about "homosexual conduct" or anything that gay people do. No "homosexual behavior," no "homosexual sex," no nothing. It's just about how people feel. No conduct.

We're going on three years of this, non-stop.

By the way, the marriage ruling they're talking about does not use the word "innate," even once. It talks about immutability, but never innateness.

Sexual orientation is innate. Everybody knows that. I can't tell you why some people are funny, some are good-looking, some get fat easily -- I don't know if there's a funny gene, or a good-looking gene, or a fat gene. I doubt that there are any of those. But these are ways some people are, innately.

But the down-low CRC haven't made their point yet. All these lies are just being told so they can get to the good part, this has just been the set-up.
Unfortunately, the Maryland Court of Appeals has determined quite the opposite. The Court stated repeatedly that homosexual conduct is not immutable (the term lawyers use for innate, for example, skin color is immutable, sex was thought to be immutable, but the Board also tells kids to change their sex so the Court of Appeals would disagree with the Board on that as well). The Court quoted legal decisions from all over the country, even California, which have ruled likewise. The Court also quoted laws from every state in the union except Massachusetts to support its finding that no gay gene exists.

To review. In the first paragraph they pretended that "innate" meant "gay gene." They also pretended that "sexual orientation" was the same as "homosexual conduct."

Now they assert that "innate" is the same thing as "immutable," which is simply bizarre. The two concepts are not the same at all.

Listen, this is weird: the CRC should like "innate," because it doesn't mean "immutable."

Somebody who is innately funny doesn't have to be funny all the time, and in fact if their life is full of tragedy they may never be funny. The innately good-looking person might dress badly and have a bad haircut, or slump, or get burned. People who innately tend to be fat can lose weight. They aren't immutably fat. (I am glad of this, by the way.)

You can get your crooked teeth straightened, you can dye your hair, and if you're gay you can stuff yourself into the closet. All these things are innate and not immutable.

Immutable means that something can't be changed. If the schools had said that sexual orientation was immutable, a legitimate argument might ensue, but they didn't say that. Innate and immutable are not the same, in fact the concepts hardly overlap.

For purposes of law, the courts have to decide what kinds of traits deserve to be protected from discrimination. I'm no lawyer and I don't know how it all works, but it seems they give extra points to "immutable" traits. I can see the sense of that, but of course it's not absolute -- religion, for instance, gets protection, even though it's not immutable.

And I should point out that it is not true that The Court stated repeatedly that homosexual conduct is not immutable. The opinion against marriage equality does discuss laws about various forms of sexual activity, and it does discuss the immutability of homosexuality, and concludes that even though some courts have ruled that it is immutable, this particular court doesn't think there is enough evidence to say that it is. It says this once: "we decline on the record in the present case to recognize sexual orientation as an immutable trait and therefore a suspect or quasi-suspect classification." Where, in their legal-eagle-lingo, "suspect" means something special having to do with whether it is OK to discriminate on the basis of a trait.

There's just so much in this posting on this gross web site, even in these two ugly paragraphs. Like, look what they threw into the middle of that bizarre, rambling sentence: the Board also tells kids to change their sex.

I know, not everybody is going to back and read the curriculum. But people, I guarantee, you won't find any place that "the Board also tells kids to change their sex." The tenth grade curriculum says, "Some transgender individuals want to live their life as the opposite gender or have surgery to become the opposite gender. Many others do not want to do so." A little later it says, "While cross-dressers change their clothes, transsexuals sometimes change their body by means of hormone therapy or sexual reassignment therapy to match how they feel."

Those statements are absolutely true. Nobody tells kids to change their sex; this kind of disregard for truth only proves that you can't believe anything the CRC says. It's not just a matter of disagreeing with their opinion. They will say anything, it is irrelevant to them whether it's true or not.

The CRC talks like they've really got the school district over a barrel here. If that was true, why would they have to lie about what's in the curriculum and what the superintendent and board members say? Why do they have to pretend that "innate," "gay gene," and "immutable" all mean the same thing? Do they expect to convince the people of Montgomery County, using a technique of misquoting people and redefining the English language?

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh! Jim has the audacity to suggest that someone else has improperly redefined the English language to the advantage of their argument. He must think he has a patent on such behavior. Every term from tolerance to family has gotten an gay upgrade by TTF.

Meanwhile, the biggest lie of the day is surreptiously sneaked in to Jim's post:

"Sexual orientation is innate. Everybody knows that."

No proof exists of this thing that everyone "knows".

September 21, 2007 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, the biggest lie of the day is surreptiously sneaked in to Jim's post:

"Sexual orientation is innate. Everybody knows that."

No proof exists of this thing that everyone "knows".


Maybe it's a lie for you, but it's 100% true for me. Here's my personal anecdote.

Ever since I was a little girl, when I found out I couldn't marry my Daddy, I knew for sure I'd marry a man that made me feel as safe and loved as he did. Loving members of the opposite sex was never a question for me. My sexual orientation was innate and so far (more than 5 decades) has remained immutable.

On the other hand, I was baptized and confirmed in the Christian faith of my mother but converted to the faith of my husband during our engagement. My religion was learned, reassessed and altered. It was neither innate nor immutable.

How and when did your sexual orientation change?

September 21, 2007 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Oh, Ziggy- and I knew Ziggy Stardust- and you are no Ziggy! You are just full of BS. CRC tells the gay gene lie over and over to try to bolster their pathetic non-facts.

I think Jim and Aunt Bea are kind to try to explain anything to you and yours. You are too thick headed for facts- except the CRC sort(unicorns,talking mice and ex-gays)

September 21, 2007 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My sexual orientation was innate"

The origin of sexual "orientation", or, more accurately, sexual preference is not something that one would necessarily be self-aware of. If people could simply diagnose themselves, there would be no need for therapists. When natural interest in sex is replaced by the desire to seek other avenues, it may well be an adaption to certain social difficulties.

In any case, there's little conclusive, replicated research on the nature of this type of desire.

September 21, 2007 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"talking mice"

Now, don't start attacking Mickey!

September 21, 2007 12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, everyone, check out distinguished Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor's new book, "A Secular Age."

It effectively debunks the notion held by some fringe elements in Canada that "atheism is the natural postion that society arrives at once it has dispensed with religious "superstition.""

Apparently, "Modernity is not headed toward the unilateral victory of an atheism that mistakes itself for reason."

Mr Taylor shows "how powerless scientific materialism is to give a full account of the human soul."

He's got 874 pages of this stuff. This is all interesting reading as the tide in Maryland appears to be turning against the gay agenda.

September 21, 2007 12:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous, being gay is innate just like handedness is innate. There's no proof of a handedness gene and yet no rational person would argue that it isn't innate.

The existence of gay people throughout history and across all cultures in the same percentages shows it is natural for a minority of the population to have same sex attractions. If it were an adaptation to social difficulties, such as absent fathers we'd see wide variations at different places and times given different social situations - we don't because its innate.

If, as the reich wing Christianists insist being gay was caused by absent/distant fathers there would have been a boom of gay children after world war II when so many fathers were away - there wasn't. If, as the reich wing Christianists insist being gay was caused by absent/distant fathers there'd be a disproportionate amount of gays in the black community where absent fathers are epidemic - there isn't because being gay is innate, not due to "social difficulties".

The existence of gay individuals throughout nature shows that gayness is natural for a minority of many populations, in particular humans.

September 21, 2007 1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This is all interesting reading as the tide in Maryland appears to be turning against the gay agenda."

Far from that mistaken view, the tide in Maryland is turning toward recognizing that discrimination against LGBT people is wrong and that every person deserves equal civil rights.

Rich Madaleno, an openly gay man, ran UNOPPOSED for a State Senate seat in Maryland in 2006. Several openly gay and lesbian people hold office in the various parts of the State.

This week the Washington Post reported:

"Maryland's gay residents can adopt children and are protected from discrimination. A new law this year requires insurance companies to provide health benefits to same-sex couples"

The Baltimore Sun reported:

"The Maryland legislature has made a few steps toward giving benefits to gay couples, including passage of a 2005 law allowing unmarried couples to enroll in a domestic registry, giving them 11 benefits, including medical decision-making and hospital visitation rights.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. vetoed it, and proponents did not attempt to override it after Ehrlich said he would work with them on a compromise."


The former Governor no longer wields the veto pen. The current governor, Governor O'Malley said "those of us with the responsibility of passing and enforcing laws have an obligation to protect the rights of all individuals equally."

Most Marylanders agree with that sentiment.

September 21, 2007 4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, being gay is innate just like handedness is innate. There's no proof of a handedness gene and yet no rational person would argue that it isn't innate."

Developing a desire for a certain type of sexual activity is fundamentally different than what side of your body is more facile. Sexual desire is more similar to taste than agility. It's more like preference for bleu cheese or vinagrette on your salad. No one would be shocked if your preference for salad dressing is not innate.

"The existence of gay people throughout history and across all cultures in the same percentages shows it is natural for a minority of the population to have same sex attractions."

You have no idea what the percentages of people who are afflicted with this unnatural desire throughout history has been. There is controversy about the percentage in our own culture so it's hard to see why you think there is some definitive answer about "all cultures". Sure, it's always been around. The Bible denounced it thousands of years ago. Doesn't mean it's innate.

BTW, there is evidence that it has been much more common in some pagan cultures, like ancient Greece, where it was tolerated. Usually, in those places, it took the form of bisexuality.

Let's face it. Absent a culture of social and religious norms, bisexuality is widespread. Preference is just a choice, by definition. In our society, not many develop this desire because it is considered an unacceptable activity- not even an option. This is a sign of a healthy society. Let's keep it healthy. Teaching kids that there is no reason not to indulge in homosexuality and having the state endorse homosexual relationships degrades this health.

"If it were an adaptation to social difficulties, such as absent fathers we'd see wide variations at different places and times given different social situations"

Not really. There are many types of difficulties that might lead to this and there are social difficulties present in all places. It's actually relative in some sense.

"If, as the reich wing Christianists insist being gay was caused by absent/distant fathers there would have been a boom of gay children after world war II when so many fathers were away - there wasn't."

Well, that's not the only theory and, besides, there are different ways to be absent.

"If, as the reich wing Christianists insist being gay was caused by absent/distant fathers there'd be a disproportionate amount of gays in the black community where absent fathers are epidemic"

Not necessarily. Inner city blacks may have social structures that substitute for the absent fathers.

"The existence of gay individuals throughout nature shows that gayness is natural for a minority of many populations, in particular humans."

Animal activity proves nothing about human nature.

September 22, 2007 5:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the tide in Maryland is turning toward recognizing that discrimination against LGBT people is wrong"

Then why aren't all these politicians trying to catch a wave and sit on top of the world.

Oops! Is that a copyright violation?

"and that every person deserves equal civil rights"

Everyone believes this and always has. The question is do we need a law to protect every bizarre desire and activity present in the human race.

"Rich Madaleno, an openly gay man, ran UNOPPOSED for a State Senate seat in Maryland in 2006."

Lower Eastern MC does not represent a tidal force in the state of MD.

"Several openly gay and lesbian people hold office in the various parts of the State."

They must not be distinguishing themselves since their colleagues don't want to even consider making them a privileged protected class.

"This week the Washington Post reported:

"Maryland's gay residents can adopt children and are protected from discrimination. A new law this year requires insurance companies to provide health benefits to same-sex couples""

The gay agenda has done alot of under the radar work. No denying it. You may remember when Glendening pushed for the sexual orientation discrimination stuff. The lawmakers were bullied into it. It was years ago. There's no new tide. They haven't been persuaded by the passage of time that it was a good idea.

"The Baltimore Sun reported:

"The Maryland legislature has made a few steps toward giving benefits to gay couples, including passage of a 2005 law allowing unmarried couples to enroll in a domestic registry, giving them 11 benefits, including medical decision-making and hospital visitation rights.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. vetoed it, and proponents did not attempt to override it after Ehrlich said he would work with them on a compromise."

The former Governor no longer wields the veto pen. The current governor, Governor O'Malley said "those of us with the responsibility of passing and enforcing laws have an obligation to protect the rights of all individuals equally.""

He'll be a little preoccupied trying to defend his outrageous tax increase proposals. Beside, the legislature would have to pass something vetoable and, as we've seen, it's unlikely.

"Most Marylanders agree with that sentiment."

Then, why don't the politicians? The liberal media has deluded you with their rah-rah repertoire.

September 22, 2007 6:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sexual desire is more similar to taste than agility.

You made that up. Name ONE medical authority who agrees with your lie.

Sure, it's always been around.

Exactly. Homosexuality and left handedness have ALWAYS been around. Only one is still believed by some fanatics to be the "mark of the devil." Most of people now realize the absurdity of that belief, with more people joining them every day.

There are many types of difficulties that might lead to this

Who cares about "might?" Name one difficulty that has been PROVEN to lead to "this."

Well, that's not the only theory

No, but it's NARTH's main theory. Randi's right. If fathers are necessary because "absent fathers" cause homosexuality like Nicolosi, Cohen-the-crackpot, and other NARTH contributors say, then military children of fathers shipped off for long periods during wars should consist of a higher percentage of LGBTs than the general population. They don't; the theory is wrong.

Not necessarily. Inner city blacks may have social structures that substitute for the absent fathers.

Another reason the theory is wrong; fathers are NOT indepensible if there are "substitutes" that can take their place.

Animal activity proves nothing about human nature.

Animals including humans are eukaryotic organisms. Humans have diploid cells and 23 sets of chromosomes -- 22 are autosomes and 1 is sex chromosomes. Human beings and other mammals have an XY sex-determination system with variations. All human beings are bipedal mammalian primates with highly developed brains, even those who think "animal activity proves nothing about human nature."

---------------------

For those who are interested in learning more about the biology of human sexuality, Oprah brought together several intersex people, that is people born with some variations of the XY sex-determination system, and a medical expert in the field. To learn about some variations in human sexuality, check it out http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200709/tows_past_20070921.jhtml

September 22, 2007 10:26 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Double dan said "Developing a desire for a certain type of sexual activity is fundamentally different than what side of your body is more facile.".

One does not develop a desire for people of a given gender, it appears unbidden and without any prior experience. You know this to be the case in your own experience and yet you lie and deny what you know to be true for you is true for everyone else, gays included, as well. One does not experience a desire for bleu cheese or vinagrette prior to ever experiencing it. It is just like handedness, you have an orientation that is innate and unlearned.

Double dan said "You have no idea what the percentages of people who are afflicted with this unnatural desire throughout history has been.".

5 to 10 percent of people have this natural desire. Given its exsitence acrosss all cultures and time it is obviously natural.

Double dan said " there is evidence that it has been much more common in some pagan cultures, like ancient Greece, where it was tolerated. Usually, in those places, it took the form of bisexuality."

Fraid not. The percentages then were about the same as percentages now. The only differences is that more people may have been open about it then. Sexual orientation is deeply ingrained and no heterosexual person is going to be encouraged to try gayness no matter how open society is about it. You know yourself you're not going to be encouraged to be gay no matter what, the converse is true for gays.


Double dan said "Preference is just a choice, by definition."
Sexual orientation is not a perference, did you choose your heterosexuality? Do you recall a time when you had no attractions to either sex, you weighed the pros and cons of each, decided to become attracted to a particular sex and immediately thereafter became attracted to that sex? Of course not and gays don't have that experience either.

For that matter preferences aren't a choice either. You might prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, but you can't simply decide that you'll immediately have the opposite preference and then experience that.

Fact is you don't know what you're talking about. You have no reason to believe gays chose their sexuality any more than you chose yours and you know you didn't choose yours. That you would express certainty that someone else's experience which you cannot know, is the opposite of yours speaks to your disingenousnous. Only a fool or a liar would say "my experience has been this, but I know for sure that this other person's experience couldn't have been the same". Which are you fool or liar?


Double dan said " In our society, not many develop this desire because it is considered an unacceptable activity- not even an option."

People don't develop gay desires, they appear unbidden and unlearned.
Not many people are gay regardless of what society considers acceptable or unacceptable. In gay accepting societies the number of gays is no larger than in non-gay accepting societies. In Iran were being gay carries the death penalty we still see the same percentages of gay people, when even the most servere penalties don't prevent people from being gay you know its indisputably innate.

I said "If it were an adaptation to social difficulties, such as absent fathers we'd see wide variations at different places and times given different social situations"

Double dan replied "Not really. There are many types of difficulties that might lead to this and there are social difficulties present in all places. It's actually relative in some sense.".

Yes, really. Different societies means different social difficulties or the absence of such difficulties. We don't see rates of gayness being associated with any social difficulty or lack thereof because it isn't, its innate.

Double dan said "Inner city blacks may have social structures that substitute for the absent fathers."

Nonsense. If they did we wouldn't be seeing my higher rates of dysfunction in the black community, higher rates of disease, unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse, dropping out of school, suicide, crime and so on. Obviously their aren't any social structures substituting for absent fathers and given the problems absent fathers have and are causing
these problems their absense would be causing more gay sons if there was any truth to "absent father" theory that Narth, Exodus and the Reich wing Christians desperately claim to be the cause of gayness.

Double dan said "Animal activity proves nothing about human nature."

Humans are animals and animals share much in common. By your logic because animals eat and sleep humans must not because animal activity proves nothing about human nature - you're obviously wrong. What the existence of gay animals indisputably proves is that gayness IS natural despite your frantic assertions that it isn't. Science shows again and again that people don't differ from animals in kind, but merely in degree. I.E. people used to believe that animals didn't think or reason but that's been proven false, they think and reason, but just not to the same sophisticated degree that we do.

Double dan said ""every person deserves equal civil rights"

Everyone believes this and always has. The question is The question is do we need a law to protect every bizarre desire and activity present in the human race.".

Many gays find heterosexuality to be bizarre and despite that all insist that that activity be protected by law. Morally speaking any activity that does not hurt others is acceptable and must be protected by the law. If you truly believed everyone deserved equal rights you'd accept that gays deserve the same right to "bizarre" behavior that heterosexuals like you have. A lot of gays find your hedonistic opposite sex activities disgusting but none of them would try to deprive you of your right to it.

September 22, 2007 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OMG, OMG, OMG.

"Weast and Nancy Navarro must be sick about the landmark decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals. As reportedhere on June 14th, Weast, Navarro and the rest of the Board, except Steve Abrams voted to sneak into the unconstitutional sex ed curriculum a statement that homosexual conduct is “innate.” At the hearing, parents pointed out that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of a “gay gene.” Weast and the Board refused to listen to the parents and boldly proclaimed that the gay gene exists and homosexual conduct is most assuredly “innate.”"

Am I to understand that “sexual conduct” is not innate amongst sexuals, and that there is no sexual gene?

”Sexual orientation is innate. Everybody knows that. I can't tell you why some people are funny, some are good-looking, some get fat easily -- I don't know if there's a funny gene, or a good-looking gene, or a fat gene. I doubt that there are any of those. But these are ways some people are, innately.”

What? You mean that sexual human beings understanding that they are sexual beings is part of the lesson plan for the sexual education curriculum?

Does this curriculum also teach about the human-need-to-love-and-be-loved-gene?

"I know, not everybody is going to back and read the curriculum. But people, I guarantee, you won't find any place that "the Board also tells kids to change their sex." The tenth grade curriculum says, "Some transgender individuals want to live their life as the opposite gender or have surgery to become the opposite gender. Many others do not want to do so." A little later it says, "While cross-dressers change their clothes, transsexuals sometimes change their body by means of hormone therapy or sexual reassignment therapy to match how they feel."

Sounds like sex-change advocacy to me. Just like that Galileo guy who forced the Earth to start going around the sun - to God’s chagrin I might add..

September 23, 2007 5:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home