Friday, February 04, 2005
Let's see how the BOE defines 'promiscuous'
One of the teacher resources recommended by the Montgomery County Board of Education is:
Sexual Orientation Myths by Planned Parenthood Association of Edmonton, Canada
(here is a link to the suggested lesson plan: http://www.ppae.ab.ca/index.php?m=1&s=11)
The CRC reviewed this and other 'Recommended Resouces' and found that in response to a question about homosexual promiscuity, the answer is that “we may question our definition of ‘promiscuous’" because “there is nothing inherent in heterosexuality that maintains strong, long-term relationships.”
Is that right?
"...there is nothing inherent in heterosexuality that maintains strong, long-term relationships".
Wow. Clearly we are missing something here. Why would the Board of Education or any group want to promote such an idea?
Let's put it another way:
The Montgomery County Board of Education advocates teaching our children that "we may question our definition of 'promiscuous'" because "there is nothing inherent in heterosexuality that maintains strong, long-term relationships."
Bring on that condom video!