Tuesday, October 09, 2007

We Saved You The Pain of Going

Some of us went to the CRC's meeting last night so you wouldn't have to. Besides us, a Washington Post reporter, and the CRC folks themselves, twenty people showed up at a community center in Gaithersburg. Oh, and it looked like a TV crew, I didn't see what channel they were from. (This just in: somebody saw it on Fox News, said I looked bored.)

They went on for an hour. I'm not transcribing the whole thing. You wouldn't read it anyway, that would be excruciating.

John Garza talked about the court case -- they and MCPS have filed papers, back and forth, CRC trying to block implementation of the new curriculum, MCPS trying to get it going. But something has changed, he says:
We're please that the Maryland Court of Appeals, a couple of weeks ago, has ruled that homosexuality is not innate. In a case called Conaway versus Deane, which was the case to try to create genderless marriage in Maryland, the Maryland Court of Appeals said wait a minute, there's not sufficient scientific evidence to show that homosexuality is an innate genetic characteristic and if that were to come about it could come back to court but as of today the scientific evidence is just not there. Therefore homosexuals were not given the rights that they want. We can use that case now in our case because what the county school board is saying to students, if you feel you are gay, tenth grade or eighth grade, then you're gay, you're stuck being gay for the rest of your life, there's no changing.

OK, this is interesting, he's telling us what strategy he intends to use in the upcoming case. We always like to hear that, hopefully MCPS's lawyers are reading this.

We can look at the ruling in Conaway v. Deane. It's a pdf file, so we can click on the little binoculars and search the file for certain text. Like, since this is going to be the cornerstone of the CRC's case, let's see where they used the word "innate."

There's nothing. The word doesn't appear once. Garza lied.

That ruling never talked about whether homosexuality or anything else is innate.

The curriculum says sexual orientation is innate, uses that word. Conaway v. Deane does not address the subject.

Let me explain what happened. The opinion in Conaway v. Deane discusses immutability. Immutability means that a characteristic can't change. Innateness means you are born with a predisposition for a trait, which may be expressed later in life (for example, baldness). The CRC is going to go into court and try to pretend these are the same thing. The school says sexual orientation is innate, not that it is immutable. The court discussed immutability, not innateness.

An example will make it clear. Let's take an obvious innate characteristic like hair color. You're born to have your color of hair: it's innate. But there's a whole row in the drug store devoted to changing your hair color: it is not immutable. Get it? Lots and lots of innate traits are mutable.

He continues:
This new case from the Court of Appeals we think will give us a lot of the ammunition we need to win in the Circuit Court and if not we'll win when we get up to the Court of Appeals. Hopefully the same judges will still be there.

So he really thinks he can hallucinate some wording into a court document, wording that's not there, and convince other people that it is there, and that it proves his side should win.

He can tell his people what that ruling says, and they'll trust him, and he's lying and they'll never figure that out. They'll believe him and then feel persecuted when the argument gets laughed out of court.

Here's how Garza describes that doctor's petition. He says:
We approached two hundred seventy medical doctors in Montgomery County, doctors right here in Rockville, Gaithersburg, all two-hundred-seventy of them signed our petition. And school board just laughed it off.

That's a new twist, not only did 270 sign it, but every single person they asked to sign it, did.

Like the one who wrote the school board and said she wanted to remove her name, that the petition had been presented under false pretenses. And like the ones I talked to who said they had been deceived, and never would have signed it if they knew what was really in it.

Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council spoke next. His first slide followed the same line. It said that the curriculum...
Proclaims homosexuality to be innate despite the recent Maryland Supreme Court ruling that it is not

They are really investing a lot in this. It is incredible that they can quote this court ruling without reading it.

He complains about the tenth grade text.
The textbook that was chosen for the tenth grade lesson was drafted by this person from, uh, Los Angeles, is that correct? [Displays Judy Chiasson's name: she works for the Los Angeles Unified School District] who is an advocate for the acceptance of homosexuality so this is the resource that they used as their outside textbook. This is an actual photocopy from the book that is used as the textbook for this lesson, giving acknowledgement to this woman, Judy Chiasson.

Listen, do you ever know who writes your kids' textbooks? Does it matter? This woman has a PhD, she works for the LA schools, we've talked about her before HERE.

Here's a point they love to make:
Every adolescent experiences confusion about their sexuality, that's the normal course of things and our concern is that those who experience any same sex attraction are effectively being encouraged to identify themselves as homosexual for life by this curriculum.

Sprigg is smarter than the rest of them, he disguises his lies. "Effectively being encouraged" lets him avoid saying that they "are being encouraged," because the curriculum does not encourage anyone to "identify themselves as homosexual for life." It isn't there, it isn't implied, but you can tell a room full of worried people that it does that, and they'll believe you. Saying it "effectively" says this is a Get Out Of Jail Free card for Sprigg, because he didn't say it "actually" encourages blah blah, he only said it "effectively" encourages blah blah. You have to prove what is and isn't between the lines to prove he's lying. Also, saying "our concern is..." means that he's not even saying it "effectively" blah blah, they're just worried that it might. Very sly.

The next speaker was Rosemarie Briggs, head of the local Family Leader Network, a Mormon group that has joined up with CRC and PFOX in the most recent legal actions.

Now this was good. She said this same thing recently and was torn to shreds in our comments section by someone who actually read the study. Listen:
[unclear] liberal organizations, Harvard University, National Public Radio, and the Kaiser Family Foundation, and they asked parents nationwide in this survey, Do you feel it's appropriate that homosexuality be discussed in the middle school, or high school? Now, fifty percent of parents nationwide said they thought it was OK for it to be defined, brought up and defined. Three fourths of high school parents felt the same way. However, when the survey went a little bit deeper, asked Do you feel that schools should teach that it is acceptable? Now, here is where the statistics are incredible. Four percent of middle school parents said Yes, schools should teach that [inaudible]. Eight per cent of high school parents said this. With a margin of error of plus and minus six percent.

So -- ninety six per cent of middle school parents nationwide think that schools go too far if they go beyond just defining. And ninety two per cent of parents at the high school level think that schools go too far. Ninety six per cent and ninety two percent don't sound like a small hysterical radical group.

OK, here, have some fun. Read the study she is citing HERE. We can check these things, you know.

First of all, when she says that some per cent of parents think "that schools go too far" she is lying. The study didn't ask that. It asked a hypothetical question about whether people would want a school to do something, not how they feel about what schools are doing. That's a big difference.

Second, her point is irrelevant. The MCPS curriculum doesn't say anything about homosexuality being acceptable. The new curriculum is an excellent example of just what people do approve of, classes that give the facts.

But the truth is, the respondents didn't say what she says they said.

Here's how this result was described in the survey report:
For the most part, Americans want teachers to talk about homosexuality, but they want them to do so in a neutral way. Fifty-two percent said schools should teach “only what homosexuality is, without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable,” compared with 18% who said schools should teach that homosexuality is wrong and 8% who said schools should teach that homosexuality is acceptable.

You could say that since only eight percent of people want the schools to teach that it's acceptable, that means ninety-two percent oppose teaching that. If the world were made up of only two kinds of people, if everybody was either against something or for it, this kind of logic might hold up.

I've talked about the excluded middle recently, haven't I? This is a perfect example of that way of obtaining falsehood from facts. You pretend you have a binary world, you can only believe A or B. Count up the number of people who believe A, and then for B you simply take the number left over.

But listen, I wouldn't have said I want the schools to teach that homosexuality is acceptable, because, like most people, I don't think that's the kind of thing schools need to take a position on. I think it's fine to talk about gay people as people, to show what their lives are like, to teach empathy and respect for them, but I don't think it would even occur to school administrators to produce a curriculum that says something like that is "acceptable." This survey found that eight percent of people said the schools should take an ideological position in favor of homosexuality, eighteen percent think the schools should take an ideological position opposing it, and most of us think they ought to just Teach the Facts.

Sorry, but Ms. Briggs' distortion of these survey results is a lie. She wanted to convince her audience that most people feel like them, but they don't. Most people think the schools should be objective. They want the schools to do what MCPS is going.

The next speaker was Ruth Jacobs, their doctor. She rushed through her talk, but we will want to look at a couple of things. She twice told us that the Surgeon General has said that anal sex is too dangerous to practice, without once mentioning that no recent Surgeon General said any such thing.

Ruth Jacobs quotes the condom video:
I was very concerned by the seven minute video, five times in the video, 'Just use your condom for oral, anal, vaginal contact.' Just use your condom oral-anal-vaginal contact.' Uh, over and over again.

If you came to this meeting and heard a physician say this in a talk, wouldn't you think that the video said, five times, "just use your condom for oral, anal, vaginal contact?"

Here's what the lesson says:
Condoms reduce, but do not eliminate the risk of STI/STD whenever there is oral, anal, or vaginal contact.

It doesn't say "just use it." This is a very accurate statement about why you should use a condom -- and you should -- for oral, anal, and vaginal sex. The medical profession agrees with this, the government web sites agree.

Nobody says that casual anal sex is okay if you use a condom. I don't have the video script in front of me, but it tells the viewer that if you are having oral, anal, or vaginal sex, you should always use a condom. It's not telling you that oral, anal, or vaginal sex are okay, it's not saying "go ahead and do these things."

Hey, listen to her explanation of the doctor petition:
The county, er, the school is not listening to me, the committee is not listening to me, I'll go out and get physicians. So I went out and got two hundred seventy physicians, I said look, we, because there's heterosexuals do anal sex as well, homosexuals this is not targeting anybody, just tell them the risk, that's what doctors do, we warn you. You gonna take aspirin you might have a stomach ache.

And uh, that uh, when the sex act, so that the [unclear] that the Surgeon General said that anal sex is too dangerous to practice.

Wow. The doctors didn't know what they were signing, any more than she knows what the next word to come out of her mouth will be. The Surgeon General she is referring to was C. Everett Koop, back in the eighties.

Would you call that a lie? "The Surgeon General said..." Would you know that was a Surgeon General from two decades ago?

Like imagine if I gave a talk and said, "The President of the United States said he cannot tell a lie..."

Now, Dr. Jacobs is rushing through her slides. She gets to a statement from the tenth grade Holt resource. Listen to this:
Encouraging coming out. Quote: "For many people, coming out is liberating and empowering and makes them feel whole, healthy, and complete."

Man, she got us with that one. The Montgomery County Public Schools are actually telling kids how great it is to "come out" and announce you're gay.

Except she lied. It doesn't say that. Well, those words are there, but she didn't tell you what it really says. Here's what the curriculum says:
"For many people, coming out is liberating and empowering and makes them feel whole, healthy, and complete. To identify oneself as gay or lesbian can be very difficult given that many people do not understand sexual minorities. Regardless of their sexual orientation, all students should use good judgment and wait to have intimate sexual activity until they are in a committed, permanent relationship.

And on the next page, the curriculum resource says:
Many people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender celebrate their self-discovery and feel relief and a new sense of joy when they can be honest with themselves and their loved ones. Others may feel isolated while coming out and my even turn to drugs, alcohol, suicide and other dangerous behaviors. Because many youths who come out are met with hostility they are at greater risk for engaging in harmful, damaging, and even life-threatening behaviors and for being the targets of violence and harassment.

Listen, if they have a point to make, why do they do this kind of stuff? Why do they lie, distort, misconstrue? She takes one part of a quote out of context, conceals the real quote from her audience to make a point, and says the schools encourage coming out. The curriculum does not do that, but discusses intelligently the pros and cons.

Imagine that the curriculum really does have problems. Somebody who became aware of those problems would, you would think, speak out and say what the problems are. But the people who spoke last night didn't do that. They couldn't point to problems in the actual, real curriculum, they had to make up stuff.

We sat through an hour of lies, the four or five people who make up the core of this group stood up there, one after the other, and distorted the curriculum contents, lying to their audience. And they had to know they were lying, they weren't just making mistakes, one after the other.

It's like they just can't stop themselves.

41 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here a example of Jim lying. It pulls one sentence out of context and says the CRC speaker is lying without noting that the sentence construct makes obvious, especially in an oral presentation, that the condition "if they go beyond just defining" applies to both sentences.

CRC speaker:

"So -- ninety six per cent of middle school parents nationwide think that schools go too far if they go beyond just defining. And ninety two per cent of parents at the high school level think that schools go too far."

Here's Jim's deceptive comment:

"First of all, when she says that some per cent of parents think "that schools go too far" she is lying."

Of course, we can argue if the new curriculum goes beyond defining but that's in the realm of opinion. I think, and any objective reader would concur, that the curriculum goes beyond.

TTF thinks that too. They know the curriculum is symmpathetic to homosexuality. The curriculum condemns any negative attitude toward homosexuality.

October 09, 2007 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"She twice told us that the Surgeon General has said that anal sex is too dangerous to practice, without once mentioning that no recent Surgeon General said any such thing."

Surgeon General is a title retained for life. No other Surgeon Generals have publicly disavowed the notion that anal sex is dangerous so it stands as official government policy.

October 09, 2007 10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now, Dr. Jacobs is rushing through her slides."

No, she wasn't. This is a lie.

October 09, 2007 10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Man, she got us with that one. The Montgomery County Public Schools are actually telling kids how great it is to "come out" and announce you're gay."

Well, she does have you. The MCPS portrays the decision as an issue of self-fulfillment and the only reason to not do so is fear. They again step into a moral minefield where they don't belong. They again go way beyond defining. Most parents would be appalled by this section if they are aware of it. CRC will try to let them know. TTF tries to prevent this.

That's deceptive!!

October 09, 2007 10:54 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

"Now, Dr. Jacobs is rushing through her slides."

No, she wasn't. This is a lie.


Wow, Anon, this one really set you off, didn't it? She was rushing through her talk, they all rushed, because they only had the room for an hour. Almost all speakers commented on the time crunch.

JimK

October 09, 2007 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The opinion in Conaway v. Deane discusses immutability. Immutability means that a characteristic can't change. Innateness means you are born with a predisposition for a trait, which may be expressed later in life. The school says sexual orientation is innate, not that it is immutable. The court discussed immutability, not innateness."

Although most people on both sides discuss these points interchangably, Jim is technically correct.

Problem is there is not sufficient evidence that homosexuality is innate just like there isn't sufficient evidence that homsexuality is immutable.

The reasoning of the court would be the same. MCPS is trying to teach opinion and not fact. In spite of their high-powered legal team and the financial support from gay advocacy groups, MCPS has fallen into the viewpoint discrimination trap again.

October 09, 2007 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Garza:

"We approached two hundred seventy medical doctors in Montgomery County, doctors right here in Rockville, Gaithersburg, all two-hundred-seventy of them signed our petition. And school board just laughed it off."

Jim:

"Like the one who wrote the school board and said she wanted to remove her name, that the petition had been presented under false pretenses. And like the ones I talked to who said they had been deceived, and never would have signed it if they knew what was really in it."

So the pressure from gay groups got one doctor to disavow their signature and profess to irresponsibly sign things without reading them. Oh, and the "ones" that talked to Jim- yeah, that's convincing.

Admit it, doctors believe there are particular health risks associated with anal sex outside of monogamous relationships regardless of whether a condom is used. The curriculum needs to do a better job making this clear to students.

October 09, 2007 11:13 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Problem is there is not sufficient evidence that homosexuality is innate just like there isn't sufficient evidence that homsexuality is immutable.

Problem is the recent court ruling on marriage equality doesn't have any relevance to the MCPS sex-ed curriculum.

JimK

October 09, 2007 11:22 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

... health risks associated with anal sex outside of monogamous relationships ...

I love this, just love it. Anon adds the phrase "outside of monogamous relationships" to make his statement true. Like, there are health risks to chewing gum while walking blindfolded across the Beltway, proving to Anon the risks of chewing gum.

Sex outside of monogamous relationships is the problem, not the orifice of entry. If you don't know the STD status of your partner you're at risk. If your partner is not infected, then you can't get infected.

JimK

October 09, 2007 11:28 AM  
Anonymous love.conquers.hate said...

We are celebrating National Coming Out day on Oct. 11th at my school and we are very excited to be doing so. Empathy is something we all value at my school, students and staff alike. We are a melting pot of a school district and we celebrate and embrace diversity, but we do not do either of those with HATE AND LIES by PFOX, CRC, and Family blah B.S. LOVE CONQUERS HATE!

October 09, 2007 11:39 AM  
Blogger Christine said...

Jim is correct that the study Briggs discussed never offered the choice "that schools go to far" but that didn't stop her from reporting on it as if it had.

Perhaps Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona's testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that political appointees in the administration routinely scrubbed his speeches for politically sensitive content and blocked him from speaking out on public health matters such as stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education and the emergency contraceptive Plan B might help explain why "No other Surgeon Generals have publicly disavowed" Surgeon General Koop's 20 year old statement. I doubt Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders agrees with Koop, judging from her talk reported here:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2005/09/surgeon-general-jocelyn-elders-still.html

I heard Dr. Jacobs joke about rushing through her slides last night. She even got a laugh.

I think you're right Jim, they can't help themselves.

October 09, 2007 11:51 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
Here a example of Jim lying.

___
Allow me...

JIM: "And they had to know they were lying, they weren't just making mistakes, one after the other."

Yeah, that evil Jim guy, just like that evil improv guy who always accuses you of projecting, and for no reason at all!
____
Anonymous said...
"Now, Dr. Jacobs is rushing through her slides."

No, she wasn't. This is a lie.


Anonymous, are you Dr. Jocobs?

October 09, 2007 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

I think it is getting pretty evident that Anon is in fact Dr. Jacobs. Interesting. The truth it out!

October 09, 2007 12:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

andrea- not anon
Nutty anon is so full of it- When I cited a Surgeon General Satcher report that it didn't agree with, it said- Well, the Surgeon General is fallible.

December 1, 2003- Richard Carmona, Surgeon General
"And we are encouraging those who engage in high-risk behavior to use condoms consistently and correctly, each and every time they have sex"

From the CDC:

"you should use condoms each time you have vaginal, oral, or anal sex."

:In 2002, 11% of males and females aged 15-19 had engaged in anal sex with someone of the opposite sex; 3% of males aged 15-19 had had anal sex with a male."

October 09, 2007 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nutflake andrea

You have any problem telling this 11% that they are doing something dangerous, even if they wear a condom?

October 09, 2007 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I don't have a problem telling anyone who is sexually active that they are doing something dangerous even if they are wearing a condom. Neither does MCPS, and I bet Andrea doesn't either. That's why the revised condom lesson tells MCPS students

Condoms reduce, but do not eliminate the risk of STI/STD whenever there is oral, anal, or vaginal contact.

October 09, 2007 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you go again, Beatrice. This casually grouping anal practices with vaginal and oral. There are different levels of risks and there have different levels of incidence. Quite honestly, providing this information would likely sharply decrease it's already low level among straights.

The question is why you don't want to differentiate the risk level of anal.

I think we all know why.

You know its a gay health issue.

The gig is up.

October 09, 2007 2:41 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "Admit it, doctors believe there are particular health risks associated with anal sex outside of monogamous relationships regardless of whether a condom is used.".

Yes, absolutely, just like there are health risks associated with vaginal sex outside of monogamous relationships regardless of whether a condom is used. Monogamous sex is perfectly safe within either gay or heterosexual relationships. Glad you finally got that straight, we're making some progress here.

October 09, 2007 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Any sexual contact "outside of monogamous relationships" particularly when you don't know the medical status of the sexual partner, is risky. That's why the CDC encourages condom use to reduce the risk to the public health.

Why do you insist this is only true for one sex act and one sexual orientation?

October 09, 2007 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
"doctors believe there are particular health risks associated with anal sex outside of monogamous relationships"

And:

"This casually grouping anal practices with vaginal and oral.

You know its a gay health issue."


So which is it? Anal sex, Anal sex outside of a monogamous relationships, or an EXCLUSIVELY (gay) same-gender attracted health issue?
_______
Also, again...
_______
Anonymous said...
"Now, Dr. Jacobs is rushing through her slides."

No, she wasn't. This is a lie.

Anonymous, are you Dr. Jocobs?

October 09, 2007 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
My point is that even for high risk sexual activity, both a Surgeon General and the CDC say to use a condom. I am pointing out that CRC lies when it attempts to pretend that anal sex is not performed and so we should not talk about using a condom. We know the statistics for adults are much higher for risky behavior. There are also studies showing that people who use condoms for initial sexual relations are much more likely to use them later on. I used actual verifiable quotes and statistics. I also know that MCPS teaches that abstinence is best and also that there is a great deal taught about STDs- in another part of the health class- something else CRC tries to pretend does not exist. Unlike their kids- my kids took the entire curriculum, as it was-and I read the textbook.
I am positive that everyone here knows who the nuts and liars are. I don't have to lie or change the subject to prove what I know are the facts as well as what is actually taught.

October 09, 2007 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But you see, Andrea. You're all sitting around talking about kids increasingly engaging in non-vaginal sex because they think it's safer or doesn't qualify as real sex. If they were just warned that anal is dangerous even with condoms, it wouldn't take a lot of convincing to get them to change their practices- if they're straight. They're probably not doing it out of preference anyway. The difference in risk factors means lives would be saved.

You guys are against warning kids about this because you are adverse to anything that would make homosexuality any less acceptable than heterosexuality.

Sadly, this is another example of why you are part of the 8% of Americans who want schools to teach that homosexuality is acceptable.

October 09, 2007 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 09, 2007 4:41 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "You're all sitting around talking about kids increasingly engaging in non-vaginal sex because they think it's safer or doesn't qualify as real sex. If they were just warned that anal is dangerous even with condoms, it wouldn't take a lot of convincing to get them to change their practices- if they're straight. They're probably not doing it out of preference anyway. The difference in risk factors means lives would be saved."

Anonymous, now you're backtracking on the point you previously seemed to understand - the problem is promiscuity, not anal or vaginal sex. Sex within a committed relationship is safe regardless of the orifice used. The curriculum makes that clear. Teenagers aren't having anal sex because they think its safer than vaginal sex, they do it because they believe it retains the female's virginity.

The point is that non-committed sex is safer with a condom regardless of whether it is anal or vaginal and sex in a committed relationship is 100% safe.

October 09, 2007 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, now you're backtracking on the point you previously seemed to understand - the problem is promiscuity, not anal or vaginal sex. Sex within a committed relationship is safe regardless of the orifice used. The curriculum makes that clear."

It's also safe without condoms for the monogamous. Condoms are only needed for the promiscuous. Assuming this is the group the curriculum targets, they should know that promiscuity with a condom is safer if it is vaginal than if it is anal. The difference is significant and has serious health consequences.

92% of Americans want this truth taught to teens.

October 09, 2007 4:58 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I am not deleting your idiocy as long as you stay on topic, so far.

JimK

October 09, 2007 5:05 PM  
Anonymous MCPS Mom against PFOX/CRC said...

I think it is great that teens are being informed about the use of condoms in all forms of sex. Dr. Jacobs, oops, I mean "Anon", why don't you want our students in MCPS to know the facts and be empowered to protect themselves? I don't understand your rationale.

October 09, 2007 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

they should know that promiscuity with a condom is safer if it is vaginal than if it is anal.

Here we go again. Show us a peer reviewed study that demonstrates your claim that "promiscuity with a condom is safer if it is vaginal than if it is anal."

October 09, 2007 5:32 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "they should know that promiscuity with a condom is safer if it is vaginal than if it is anal.".

There is no evidence of this. Stop making stuff up.

Anonymous said "92% of Americans want this truth taught to teens.".

Another lie. Just because 8% want students to be taught that gayness is acceptable doesn't mean that 92% desire the opposite. If this were the case then based on your logic it would be just as valid to say "The views of FLN, CRC, and PFOX on the appropriateness of schools to teach acceptance of sexual variations is strongly supported by parents in Montgomery County and across the country.

According to a national poll in 2004, 82 percent of high school parents said it is wrong for schools to teach that homosexuality is unacceptable."

I don't hear you, FLN, CRC, or PFOX making that statement, but its just as "valid" as your claim that "92 percent of parents said its wrong to teach that homosexuality is acceptable".

See how that works? 18% of parents want schools to teach that gayness is unacceptable, therefore by your logic 82% don't want schools to teach that gayness is unacceptable.

Now how do you reconcile the two statments:

92% of parents want gayness taught as unacceptable.

and

82% of parents want gayness taught as acceptable.

???

Obviously the "logic" used by you and the "Family" "Leader" Network is a lie.

October 09, 2007 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

Here is what was on Fox about CRC and the MCPS Sex-ed curriculum (click on the link)

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4582122&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.2.1

October 09, 2007 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Thanks Teacher Man.

Now it's a link.

October 09, 2007 7:09 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

do you all think that this case is going all the way to the supreme court? john garza seems to think so.

i don' think that they are going to win if this is the case. no parent is forced to make his or her child attend the class. the news report even said parents have the option to keep their child from attending the class.

October 09, 2007 7:11 PM  
Blogger A Teacher's Perspective said...

I also saw that segment on Fox News. I highly doubt that it will go to the Supreme Court but, if it does, MCPS will come out on top.

The sad part of this entire "controversy" is that so many tax-payer dollars are being thrown away when they could be put to good use educating our students. Shame on CRC and PFOX!

October 09, 2007 7:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon

Yeah, it will go to the Supreme Court- all about a class that kids don't have to take. Johnny is delusional- what a surprise. Hey, did anyone know Peter Sprigg had been a "professional actor"? I can see where his divinity masters and his acting career trump a PHd from Claremont who wrote the new curriculum.

October 09, 2007 8:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yeah, it will go to the Supreme Court- all about a class that kids don't have to take."

Hey, how about we switch to an abstinence curriculum and let the county's Deadheads opt their kids out and let them read the Fishback revisions in the library.

How about that?

October 10, 2007 5:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Here we go again. Show us a peer reviewed study that demonstrates your claim that "promiscuity with a condom is safer if it is vaginal than if it is anal.""

Oh, we are going again. Tell us first about the peer reviewed study that says condoms work as well for vaginal and anal sex, as the curriculum implies.

While you're at it, show us the peer reviewed study that shows that homosexuality is innate.

Indeed, show us any study at all.

MCPS apparently doesn't require evidence for its curriculum. They only require that the curriculum make homosexuality acceptable.

They want to be in the elite 8%-

like all the movie stars!

October 10, 2007 5:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is no evidence of this. Stop making stuff up."

Randi, condoms were designed and tested for vaginal sexual activity. Read the instructions.

"Anonymous said "92% of Americans want this truth taught to teens.".

Another lie. Just because 8% want students to be taught that gayness is acceptable doesn't mean that 92% desire the opposite."

No one say they desire the opposite. They want neutrality and facts taught. To imply that condoms work as well for anal sex as for vaginal is not based on any evidence and the purpose of teaching this is a bias in the curriculum toward making homosexuality appear acceptable.

92% OF AMERICANS DO NOT WANT SCHOOLS TEACHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ACCEPTABLE.

THE NEW MCPS CURRICULUM TRIES TO DO THIS BY FALSELY INSINUATING THAT ANAL SEX WITH A CONDOM IS SAFE.

IT IS NOT SAFE!

October 10, 2007 5:51 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

They want neutrality and facts taught.

That's why 91+% of MCPS parents of eligible 8th and 10th graders gave their student permission to take the pilot test of this neutral, fact filled curriculum. These parents gave their consent even with all the histrionics of the CRC's robocalls, emails, press releases, personal pleas, etc. CRC represents a loud and well organized radical fringe of how many it was it -- 20 people who showed up at their meeting -- and even with their "benefactors" of hate are unable to convince other parents to join them.

FALSELY INSINUATING THAT ANAL SEX WITH A CONDOM IS SAFE.

Another lie. The condom lesson doesn't insinuate anything when it states the fact that:

Condoms reduce, but do not eliminate the risk of STI/STD whenever there is oral, anal, or vaginal contact.

October 10, 2007 6:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's why 91+% of MCPS parents of eligible 8th and 10th graders gave their student permission to take the pilot test of this neutral, fact filled curriculum."

99% of parents will sign any paper the school sends home. They think they're required to. The fact that only 91% signed this one shows that engaged parents have reservations.

It's not neutral and no one really believes that. It's purpose is to create respect, tolerance and empathy for homosexuality, regardless of the facts.

How is that neutral?

"CRC represents a loud and well organized radical"

You're doing it again, Bea. This is called lying. "Radical" means seeking drastic change. CRC's cause is the status quo.

"fringe of how many it was it -- 20 people who showed up at their meeting --"

Overall, their meetings have been better attended than TTF's- or the CAC's public meetings.

"and even with their "benefactors" of hate are unable to convince other parents to join them."

Calling commitment to traditional morality "hate" is another attempt to encourage the acceptability of homosexuality.

"FALSELY INSINUATING THAT ANAL SEX WITH A CONDOM IS SAFE.

Another lie. The condom lesson doesn't insinuate anything when it states the fact that:

Condoms reduce, but do not eliminate the risk of STI/STD whenever there is oral, anal, or vaginal contact."

This implies an equivalence of the risk level for these types of sexual activity which is nothing but fantasy based on a desire to make homosexuality more acceptable.

Give kids the facts. Condoms have only been demonstrated to work well for vaginal sexual activity.

October 10, 2007 7:20 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

99% of parents will sign any paper the school sends home. They think they're required to. The fact that only 91% signed this one shows that engaged parents have reservations.

There you go again -- writing fiction. Tell us, where are the facts, surveys, polls, whatever, that back up any of your claims? You have no idea what percentage of parents sign school papers or what they're thinking or who's engaged and who's not.

It's not neutral and no one really believes that. It's purpose is to create respect, tolerance and empathy for homosexuality, regardless of the facts.

There you go -- singling out one orientation, again. The curriculum does not say there should be "respect, tolerance and empathy" for just one sexual orientation, but for all of them.

You're doing it again, Bea. This is called lying. "Radical" means seeking drastic change.

Am I? Does it? Wrong on both counts, Anon. Merriam Webster includes this definition of radical and gives the perfect example of its use, as well:

d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs (the radical right)

Most would agree that attempting to recall the entire MCPS BOE is rather extreme. "[Date=01-13-2005] Name:ADMINISTRATOR support@recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com, [Msgid=763681]"

Give kids the facts.

The curriculum does give the kids facts when it states:

"Condoms reduce, but do not eliminate the risk of STI/STD whenever there is oral, anal, or vaginal contact."

October 10, 2007 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Gosh, We parents in MCPS are such idiots. How did kids ever graduate without CRC guidance? I mean we never read anything that we sign- just like 270 doctors at Shady Grove Hospital? Actually, I read anything I sign- but I don't have to sign something to get weepy Ruth to leave me alone

October 10, 2007 2:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home