Dear Abby misses perfect opportunity!




Dear Abby - Here's Some Advice

Warren Throckmorton, PhD
March 30, 2004
(reprinted with permission)


Recently, Dear Abby posted a letter from a mother whose 14 year old daughter disclosed that she was attracted to girls. Thinking this made her a lesbian, the girl was not shy about telling people about her feelings. The mother wrote to Abby: “I keep trying to make her understand that this is HER business, and it's not something she should make public.” And the mom asked, “Am I wrong in telling her that?”

Here Abby had an opportunity to educate the public and help this mom but she blew it. She told the mom that “It is not uncommon for the parents of a gay child to feel guilt or shame, when in truth, it has nothing to do with the quality of their parenting and everything to do with genetics.” She then directed her to organizations that perpetuate the belief that homosexuality is an inborn identity with no words of caution concerning the flexibility of identity in adolescence.

I will admit I have read Jeanne Phillips’ (aka Dear Abby) column occasionally but have never seen the point of writing a letter to her – until now. Although I am not likely to see my letter of advice in her column, I have reproduced it here.

Dear Abby:

“You are so often right on target with issues of human behavior that it amazes me that you are so far off the mark concerning homosexuality and sexual orientation. I am writing specifically concerning the advice you gave in a March 14 column to a mother of a 14 year old girl who believed she was a lesbian. As one who researches sexual orientation, I have three serious concerns about your advice.

First, many, if not most 14 year olds who think they might be gay eventually determine that they are straight. Surveys of youth demonstrate this. In one large survey of youth concerning sexuality, just over 12% of 14 year olds were unsure about their sexual orientation. However, by adulthood, only between 2-4% of people say they are gay, lesbian or bisexual. According to a major sexuality survey by Edward Laumann and colleagues, published by the University of Chicago Press, there are many people who experience same sex attractions and engage in same sex behaviors as teens who then never do as adults. Have you never heard of LUGs (Lesbians Until Graduation) describing girls who engage in same sex relationships until they are young adults? In other words, you should not indicate to a teen that sexual attractions at 14 are reliable indicators of what they might be at 24. The mother's inclination to be cautious in this case was wise.

Second, your statement concerning homosexuality having “everything due to genetics” cannot be supported with research evidence. You are partly correct to minimize the role of parenting on the development of same sex attractions. However, there is much more to environment than parenting. You really should examine the work of Daryl Bem at Cornell University concerning the interaction of environment and biological factors on sexual attractions. Further, the research concerning possible genetic/biological factors in sexual orientation has been summarized by the American Psychiatric Association as follows: “There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.” The most recent identical twin studies found that fewer than 25% of homosexuals share their sexual orientation with their identical twin. The best and most recent research demonstrates that sexual orientation does not have “everything to do with genetics.”

Third, your recommendation of PFLAG and the DC - Children's Hospital programs as resources for parents is woefully one-sided. Parents should understand that these resources provide one narrow perspective. They should also examine information at http://www.freetobeme.com/ and www.drthrockmorton.com which examines multiple viewpoints and controversies concerning this subject in a respectful manner. You present a false picture that science has settled all questions and controversies concerning sexual orientation, gender differences and children. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Over 110 million readers rely on you for sound information and advice. Most often you provide just that. In this case, however, your encouragement of a young teen and her mother to think that her feelings are irreversibly determined by genetics is incredibly simplistic and misleading. Thousands, perhaps millions of teens seeking accurate information concerning this matter read your columns hoping to get common sense answers to tough questions. Please open your mind to all of the evidence and research concerning sexual orientation. I would be privileged to provide you with the articles I have described in my letter and much, much more.”

With advice such as given by Ms. Abby, it is no wonder many people think we are one study away from figuring out where the gay-spot is in the brain. My advice to her is to do a little research. I would be glad to help her get started.

If you want to write Dear Abby concerning this column, go to http://www.dearabby.com/ and send a letter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Throckmorton, PhD is Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of Counseling at Grove City College (PA). His columns have been published by over 60 newspapers and his academic works in journals of the American Psychological Association and the American Mental Health Counselors Association. In 2004, he produced the documentary, I Do Exist concerning sexual orientation change. He can be reached at ewthrockmorton@gcc.edu or via his website at www.drthrockmorton.com..
- posted by bianca m @ 9:43 AM  

 
Mission Impossible

Click here to turn on tape player.

- posted by Andy @ 7:42 AM  

 
No Religion Allowed in the New Curriculum? Think Twice!

No Religion Allowed in the New Curriculum? This is a direct quote from a resource of the new MCPS Sex-Ed curriculum:

"Transformational ministry” is a term used to describe the use of religion to eliminate homosexual desires. While “reparative therapy” relies on secular approaches, “transformational ministry” takes the approach that “freedom from homosexuality is possible through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.” While there is some diversity within the movement, most “transformational ministries” adhere to a belief that “upholds heterosexuality as God's creative intent for humanity, and subsequently views homosexual expression as outside God's will.” The “transformational ministry” movement, which began in the early 1970s, has gained more visibility in the media recently through the efforts of Christian publishers and conservative political organizations.

The most important fact about “transformational ministry” is that its view of homosexuality is not representative of the views of all people of faith. Many deeply religious people and a number of religious congregations and denominations are supportive and accepting of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and their right to be protected from the discriminatory acts of others. For example, the following organizations have endorsed passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation:

American Ethical Union, American Friends Service Committee, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Church of the Brethren, Church Women United, Dignity/USA, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Hadassah, WZOA, The Interfaith Alliance, Jewish Women International, National Council of Churches of Christ, USA, National Council of Jewish Women, North Georgia United Methodists, Presbyterian Church (USA), Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Women of Reform Judaism, Young Women's Christian Association.

Although “transformational ministry” promotes the message that religious faith and acceptance of gay, lesbian, and bisexual sexuality are incompatible, that message is countered by the large number of outspoken clergy and people of faith who promote love and acceptance.

Now you tell me...No religion allowed in the new curriculum?? Especially NOT from very biased one sided sources!?!

SOURCE: Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel

- posted by DoctorJ @ 9:20 PM  

 
About Hate and Fear ......

From the Washington Times Article on March 20, 2005:

“Scott Davenport of Bethesda addressed the crowd during the public comment section. "I have to tell you I'm scared," he said. "I'm a gay man, and this is a very scary place for me to be right now."

Mr. Davenport said he and his male partner of 28 years have a daughter on the honor roll at one county public school and a son in junior high.

Mr. Davenport said he distinguished a "tone of hate" at the meeting, which was really an "anti-gay meeting."

Some parents who are opposed to the curriculum thanked Mr. Davenport for speaking and told him that they do not hate him.”

A word about the fear that Mr. Davenport says he felt, and the tone of hate he says he sensed, at the CRC Town Hall Meeting:

The CRC is committed to communicating respect for all people, while at the same time standing up for our values concerning human sexuality. We CAN disagree and still respect each other Mr. Davenport. Because we don’t condone the gay lifestyle, doesn’t mean we think you are to be feared, ridiculed, or humiliated. We are not threatened by you, and you certainly shouldn’t feel threatened by us. This is about the values and beliefs we all possess and have the right to defend. We wouldn't force our values on others and feel that others shouldn’t force their values on our children. The resounding conclusion from MANY parents is that the classroom isn’t the place for this, the home is. All parents have the right to instruct their children according to their beliefs without the schools trying to step in and teach them otherwise.

- posted by Andy @ 8:44 PM  

 
No Religion Allowed in the New Curriculum? Think Again!

Proponents of the new MCPS Board of Education's Sex-Ed curriculum love to say that religion and theology should not be a part of the new curriculum. One example of this is an op-ed in the Washington Examiner on February 14, where David Fishback, Chairman of the Montgomery County Public School Board of Education's Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development who wrote the new curriculum, defended it suggesting that other points of view about homosexuality - for example, that it is a choice -- do not belong in the curriculum. "Such theological debates have no place in the public school health curriculum" Fishback wrote. Another example is that of a pro-curriculum group, that claims "religious extremists are attempting to impose individual religious beliefs on all of our children".

So you think you would be surprised if religion is included in the new curriculum at all, right? Wrong, think again.

In the 'APPROVED' Planned Parenthood Lesson Plan resource for the new curriculum, children are asked if the following statement is True, or a Myth:

Loving people of the same sex is immoral (sinful).

And the Lesson Plan's answer is:

Many religious denominations do not believe this. For example, in 2002 the Anglican Church of Canada began ritual blessings of same-sex unions.

No religion allowed in the new curriculum?

- posted by MrADMN @ 1:56 PM  

 
'Sex-education' or 'Re-education'?

The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife give themselves to each other. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for human freedom, security, and fraternity within our society. The breakdown of the American society is demonstrative of the breakdown of the family.

Ask you yourself this question; “Does the Montgomery County Public Schools Board of Education want to reinforce families and their influence in life and society in America, or break them down, by 'redefining' the family?

FACT: The MCPS Board of Education will be telling children this spring that:

Families are “two or more people who are joined together by emotional feelings or who are related to one another.”

Did you catch that, ‘"joined together by emotional feelings"’, not by law, not by tradition, not by COMMITMENT, but by feelings. Ask any human being, the most changeable thing in a person’'s life are their 'feelings', a strong feeling of today is a whimper of a thought tomorrow.

Why is the Board of Education arbitrarily changing the meaning of family as it has existed in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY to include virtually any human relationship, with or without commitment, with or without legal status, and without regard to the values of the citizens of Montgomery County?

Is it because same sex parent families are listed in the curriculum as a 'kind of family', and the only way to include them is to redefine the family? The Board of Education's ONLY support for this inclusion in the curriculum are the statements; "American families are becoming more complex and the greater variety of households encourages open mindedness in society"”, because, "[t]he year 2000 U.S. Census showed a significant increase in nontraditional households and family configurations." The rest of the curriculum is silent to this issue.

In light of all this, here's another question; Is the Board of Education conducting 'sex-education', or 're-education'? And is this new teaching as hostile to the family and American society today as the re-education camps in Soviet Union and Vietnam were to those poor souls who were ‘'entrusted to the care of THEIR government’'? Didn't those governments try to break down the existing society and its traditions, and remold people to 'their way of thinking'?

The role of Montgomery County Public Schools is NOT to redefine society to 'their way of thinking'! It is NOT to indoctrinate children to the Board of Education's 'arbitrary decisions'! Why would they want to do that anyway?

Maybe...because...the Montgomery County Board of Education wants to normalize same sex couples? If so, that is not definition (as they claim), it is advocacy.

You can almost hear it now:

"Good morning class. Welcome to Montgomery County Public Schools' re-education course for 8th and 10th graders. Did everyone remember to leave your family's teaching on committment, values, morality, tradition, and truth at the door before you came in?"

You decide.

- posted by DoctorJ @ 10:28 AM  

 
'Heteronormative' -- Coming to a curriculum near you?
You might have heard the controversy about actress Jada Pinkett Smith (wife of actor Will Smith), who was honored by Harvard University as their “Artist of the Year” at the 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show.

In accepting her award, Ms. Pinkett Smith said, “'Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career”.

Sounds like a heartfelt and sincere acceptance speech, right? Would you be surprised to hear that (emphasis added), according to the Harvard Crimson:

BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ’06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was “motivational,” some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.

“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” he said.

Students said that some of Pinkett Smith’s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.

Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females. “Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,” Woods said.

Margaret C. D. Barusch ’06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.

“I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship—a heterosexual relationship,” Barusch said. “I don’t think she meant to be offensive but I just don’t think she was that thoughtful.”


So, how long will it take for 'heteronormative' to become the 'norm' for the sex-ed curriculum in Montgomery County Public Schools? Unfortunately, not long. The new curriculum encourages the use of 'partner' instead of husband/wife or girlfriend/boyfriend. And according to one of the main sources for the new curriculum, Advocates for Youth - Creating Inclusive Programs, our children are to be taught to "discuss sexual behaviors explicitly rather than assuming that everyone defines sexual intercourse in the same way". Also, they are to "avoid terms that make unwarranted assumptions or are disrespectful in nature".

So you see, the GLBT group at Harvard is not the only group trying to prove to themselves and others that heterosexuality is not the 'norm'.

Mrs Sharon Cox, Mrs. Patricia O'Neill and Dr. Jerry Weast as well as the entire Board of Education of Montgomery County Public Schools has now done the same with the implementation of the pilot program and the condom video.

Social advocacy has no place in our public schools. But it's coming, unless we all stand up for what is right.
- posted by bianca m @ 4:49 PM  

 
Is the MCPS BOE Admitting to Providing "Adult Content" to Underage Children?

After hearing about the new MCPS Board of Education's Cucumber and Condom video, a parent wrote the BOE about it. In their email message they used the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE as in the video:

"oral, or anal or vaginal sex"

Their message did not get through to the Board of Education. The parent received this auto response:

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 10:44 AM
To: Undisclosed Recipient
Subject: Content Filtering Notification

This is an automatically generated notification.

The message referenced in the details below was not delivered due to inappropriate content. It surpassed the threshold set in the Adult Content dictionary.

The action on the message fell into the following category:

Messages that were dropped (Content Filtering)

If you believe the message was blocked in error, please resend it...and include the name of the intended recipient so it can be forwarded.

E-mail Administrator, Montgomery County Public Schools

This is simply OUTRAGEOUS! What kind of dual faced double standard is THIS???? The MCPS Board of Education thinks it is appropriate to 'educate' our children about "oral, or anal or vaginal sex", but at the same time the Board of Education admits that it NOT APPROPRIATE to let a parent's email with a question about their child's education use the exact same language because it is "inappropriate content" that "surpassed the threshold set in the Adult Content dictionary".

Is the BOE admitting here (demonstrating here?) that it is providing Adult Content to underage children?

- posted by Bob @ 10:21 AM  

 
The Cucumber Curriculum
By Cal Thomas
Published March 9, 2005

Because Justice Anthony Kennedy has ruled our moral, ethical, even legal framework on capital punishment for murderers under 18 is to be determined by "evolving standards," let us move to another application of that flawed philosophy: sex.

In the produce section of the grocery store, the lowly cucumber is about to achieve an elevated position in some Montgomery County, Md., public schools. The county has long been known as a "bedroom community" in the affluent Washington D.C. suburbs -- an appropriate moniker given what young students are about to be taught.

The school system announced last week that a new sex curriculum will be introduced this spring for three middle schools and three high schools. Students will be taught how to put a condom on a cucumber. They will also be taught that homosexual couples are the newest American "family."

But this isn't just about condoms, cucumbers and a new definition of family. In American schools, as in the rest of the country, one must be attuned to and indulge the desire of every citizen, as well as noncitizens.

That's why there's a "movement" in California to create gender-neutral toilets in public places so transsexuals and even people with "androgynous identity who do not consider themselves completely male or female," in the words of a New York Times story, might feel comfortable.

But I digress. The Montgomery County schools trying out this program will also teach students to "develop" a sexual identity. According to the official line, gender identity is "a person's internal sense of knowing whether he or she is male or female." Gee, I discovered that as a child in the bathtub without the help of my public school.

There does not seem to be a groundswell, or even a tremor, from parents to begin such a curriculum. Instead, this appears to be an idea hatched by the dirty minds of people like Russ Henke, the county health education coordinator.

Mr. Henke told The Washington Times: "We have some schools that stepped up to it and some schools that were recruited to do it," adding, "A school may not be real pleased because of the controversy involved, but we need the representation from that area." What "area" would that be? Planned Parenthood? The sex toy industry?

The pilot program initially requires parental permission, but that won't last. Once "legitimacy" is established, pressure will be applied to make anyone who doesn't take the course feel like an outsider. Many will conform to avoid being "stigmatized."

Isn't that the same argument used to ban school prayer? Yes, but no one prays to a cucumber -- not that there would be anything wrong with that in our tolerate-everything, "evolving standards" culture, which begs the question as to how anything could be a standard if it is evolving?

Back to the cucumbers and the presumption by "sex educators" that virtually all young people want to jump into bed with someone as soon after puberty as possible. The facts do not sustain such a conclusion.

In January, NBC News, in conjunction with People magazine, surveyed 13- to 16-year-olds on their attitudes about intimate physical contact. The survey found 27 percent were sexually active, but that leaves 73 percent who are not.

Why, then, not focus our program on encouraging those who are abstinent to continue on that path, while trying to turn around the 27 percent who are sexually active? Instead, we seem bent on encouraging the behavior we claim not to want.

While the elites argue against abstinence, it works when it's tried. In a March 5 letter to the editor of The Washington Times, Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary Wade F. Horn wrote: "At least 10 published studies -- four in scientific peer-reviewed journals -- have shown that [abstinence] education helps youth delay the onset of sexual activity."

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 91 percent of adults and 94 percent of teens believe teens should get a strong message from society they should not have sex until they are at least out of high school.

That high percentage apparently doesn't extend to administrators in the Montgomery County public schools. Initially, the school system proposed using a video "show and tell" to teach the students how to put a condom on a cucumber.

Should they decide to employ a teacher to demonstrate the process, here's my advice for the lowly employee who will have to buy the cucumbers at the supermarket. If the checkout person says anything, your response should be: "I'm just buying some evolving pickles."

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
- posted by bianca m @ 4:16 PM  

 
Upset with Big Tobacco!

(Watch video here)
As a society, we don’t allow children under age 18 to purchase cigarettes, and we prosecute those who sell them to minors. These laws are in place in order to protect kids from the effects of smoking, an addictive habit, which if continued places one at great risk of lung cancer or heart disease. Why, I ask, do we falter or even hesitate, when it comes to the message we give teens about sexual activity? One cigarette won’t kill you or make you sick, but one sexual encounter could do both.

Even though kids smoke, kids drink, and kids do drugs, we still tell them “Just say no.” or “Don’t do it.” Why is there such a huge disconnect when it comes to premature sexual activity? Why can’t we (as a society) treat sex like we treat drinking, drugs and smoking in the teen population? Could it be that society can’t really agree on a clear definition of “premature” in relation to sexual activity? Can we agree that there is no benefit in this day and age from teen sexual activity?

‘Durex, the condom manufacturer, did a world-wide survey on sexual behavior and sex education. In analyzing their data, we came to a startling conclusion: there is a statistically significant linear relationship between onset of sex education and onset of sexual behavior. Simply stated, the earlier an adolescent is educated about sex, the earlier he is likely to engage in sex. This observation is so remarkable because it remains true across a worldwide tapestry of cultures which have different political systems, ethnic makeup and religious systems.”
From: As Goes Montgomery County, So Goes the Nation?,
by David Blakeslee, PsyD

My, I bet Durex loves a curriculum like we’re going to get in Montgomery County. “Protect Yourself!”

Maybe we need to get upset with Big Latex!

- posted by Andy @ 1:46 PM  

 
Homosexual Youth and Suicide -- The Politics of Deceit, part 4
'Zealots' and 'Extremists' or The Intolerance of the Left

As we have seen, right here in our own Montgomery County, the 'politics of deceit' mandates that people who speak up about the bias of the left (or the bias of the new curriculum or the bias of the CAC) must be silenced. Their most effective weapon is to brand people 'homophobes', ' zealots', 'religious extremists' and the like. We have seen this name calling happen already on PTA list servs, newsletters and on certain websites and blogs where 'supporters' of the new curriculum try to close down any chance for a rational dialogue in this way.

While their claims of 'religious extremist' and arguments about 'hate' and 'intolerance' are flat out lies, they are effective in that they intimidate school officials, PTA presidents, Board of Education members, local politicians, some religious and other community leaders from speaking up and standing up for what they believe and for what is right for our children.

This issue, combined with the verbally and visually graphic condom video, demands that people become informed and speak out.

The members of the CRC know that this is the right thing to do. We are standing up and speaking out against the intolerance of the left and the blindness of those who would cede to the public school system the total responsibility for the sexual and moral education of our children.

It is time for all concerned parents and tax paying citizens of Montgomery County to stand up and take a stand for the safety of all children. Will you join us?

Email the Montgomery County Board of Education at boe@fc.mcps.k12.md.us

Signup to be a part of this effort at volunteer@mcpscurriculum.com.

Come to the Town Hall Meeting -- Saturday, March 19 (from 10-1 pm), find details here.
- posted by bianca m @ 2:05 PM  

 
Homosexual Youth and Suicide -- The Politics of Deceit, part 3


Early Self-Identification as Homosexuals Places Children at Risk of Suicide

While there is no evidence of an epidemic of gay teen suicides, there are sexually confused children who do kill themselves. According to Dr. Charles Socarides, one of the leading psychotherapists who treats gender identity disorders, the suicides committed by self- identified homosexual teens are not the result of religious or family opinion, but that these kids can't come to terms with themselves. They wish someone would help them and they despair because of this.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi is a founder of NARTH. Nicolosi is also author of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, and is a leading opponent of pro- gay counseling programs in the public schools.
Dr. Nicolosi wrote:

I believe it is a profound mistake to encourage adolescents with homosexual feelings to identify themselves as 'gay' and thus to make a sexual lifestyle decision with long-term and potentially deadly implications. Yet that is precisely the goal of Project 10 and similar pro-gay programs, which are being instituted in scores of public high schools across the country.

Project 10 is founded on the highly dubious assumption that there are 'gay' youth who must be supported as gays. This ignores the formative factors behind homosexuality. The adolescent is torn by intense sexual and romantic feelings. At the same time, he is very unsure of his personal identity. These adolescent years serve as a transitional phase when affectionate, emotional and identification needs are eroticized. Compulsive, even addictive, sexual patterns
can be formed during youth. Later in adult life, if this same person attempts to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle, he will find the transition very difficult. He already labeled himself 'gay', and will have established deepseated sexual behavior patterns.

The danger of self- identifying as a homosexual at a young age is confirmed by a study conducted by Dr. Gary Remafedi with the University of Minnesota. In one study, Remafedi studied five variables of male homosexual youth who attempted suicide: age at the time of bisexual or homosexual self- labeling, use of illegal drugs, feminine gender role, criminal apprehension, and sexual abuse. He noted that 'family problems' was the most frequent reason cited for attempting suicide among these teens. But he also discovered that 'self- labeling' had a significant impact on a teen's decision to attempt suicide. According to Remafedi, the factors most likely to contribute to a suicide attempt are: "gender nonconformity [acting like the opposite sex] and precocious psychosexual development [early sexual experiences] were predictive of self-harm. For each year's delay in bisexual or homosexual self- labeling, the odds of a suicide attempt diminished by 80%."

Thus, the most important risk factors in gay youth suicide attempts are:

1. Early self labeling;
2. Early sexual experiences;
3. Acting like a member of the opposite sex.

From the observations of Dr. Nicolosi and Dr. Remafedi one could conclude that a teenager who is encouraged to self-identify at an early age wrongly as a gay, lesbian, bisexual or trangendered youth is conditioned to believe he is born that way.

The longer he is in the lifestyle, the more entrenched the behavior becomes and the more difficult it becomes to be free of this destructive behavior. As a result, many self- identified 'gay' teens may be tempted to kill themselves because of internal conflicts over their behavior.

Interesting, isn't it?

Why then are the members of the Montgomery County Board of Education and their supporters so blind to these FACTS?

If they are so interested in the 'safety' of all children, why do they advocate early self-labeling and experimentation through the implementation of this curriculum?

Seems these are good questions for our BOE presidents, past and present as well as our superintendent of schools:

Mrs. O'Neill, Mrs. Cox and Dr. Weast, please tell us:

If you are so interested in preserving the safety of all children in MCPS, why do you advocate early self-labeling and sexual experimentation for our youth?

- posted by bianca m @ 2:16 PM  

 
Homosexual Youth and Suicide -- The Politics of Deceit, part 2
GLSEN’s tactics worked in Massachusetts.

Homosexuals promoted the issue of “safety” for “gay teens,” and they pushed the notion that homosexual teenagers were committing suicide in record numbers. Activists used bogus teen suicide statistics created by San Francisco homosexual social worker Paul Gibson. His research paper, “Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide,” was included as a supporting document in a 1989 report on youth suicide published by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Although Gibson’s report was repudiated by Dr. Louis Sullivan, former Secretary of HHS, homosexual militants continue to use Gibson’s phony statistics. According to Gibson, homosexual teens are experiencing an epidemic of suicides. [THIS IS NOT TRUE!] Gibson claimed, for example, that suicides among gay and lesbian youth may account for one third of all youth suicides; that homosexual teens are two to three times more likely to kill themselves than their heterosexual peers; that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay and lesbian youth; and that these suicides are frequently the result of “internalized homophobia.”

Gibson’s flawed statistics have been effectively refuted by numerous experts on suicide. In his report, Gibson refers to one author who speculated that in 1985, as many as 3,000 gay teens kill themselves each year. This is a statistical impossibility because this number exceeds the total number of annual teen suicides by more than one thousand.

Dr. David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist and specialist on teen suicide is skeptical of Gibson’s statistics: “I struggled for a long time over [Gibson’s mathematics], but, in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math.”

Peter Muehrer, chief of the Youth Mental Health program in the Prevention and Behavioral Medicine Research branch of the National Institutes of Mental Health says of Gibson’s research: “There is no scientific evidence to support his data.”

Even Joyce Hunter, former head of the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association says it is still unknown if there is any connection between homosexuality and teen suicide.

As a result of homosexual lobbying and misinformation, former Gov. William Weld established his commission on gay youth. This commission is currently funded at $1.5 million a year to promote “safe schools” in Massachusetts and to counteract “homophobia” in the classroom. Massachusetts taxpayers are getting to fund the seduction and corruption of their children.




- posted by bianca m @ 1:27 PM  

 
Teaching the Facts?

The white paper written about the new curriculum in Dec 2004 by Dr. Warren Throckmorton begins by stating:

“Our purpose in reviewing the curriculum is essentially to evaluate the facts presented in the curriculum. Is the material presented factual? Are some claims made that are essentially opinions that are presented as fact? Are some claims more dogmatic than they should be? We hope to present an evaluation of these issues based upon our knowledge of the social science research and sound educational thinking.”

After 30 pages of review in Health Education as Social Advocacy: An Evaluation of the Proposed Montgomery County Public Schools Health Education Curriculum, Warren Throckmorton, PhD and David Blakeslee, PsyD
conclude:

“The curriculum could be more aptly titled: Presenting a Value Free, Essentialist perspective on Human Sexuality. The key word here is perspective. If this material were presented as part of a debate class, or even as an article in the school newspaper it would be understood that it was just one point of view. When the MCPS unwittingly uses a biased approach to teach children about sexual behavior, children assume that this is scientific and balanced. Restricting children’s information to a biased point of view interferes with their full knowledge of what options are available to them in setting their life goals and managing their personal behavior to reach those goals. This seems completely contrary to the mission of the Montgomery County Public Schools.”

This paper is worth reading and the CRC recommends it to those who want the facts about this curriculum.

We thank Dr. Throckmorton for taking the time to apply his expertise in evaluating the new curriculum and we, like he,

“suggest that the curriculum be returned to the CAC for further revision. The BOE should consider the possibility that researchers representing a diversity of opinions be called in to assist in making the curriculum better represent current thinking in sexuality. In this way, parents and the BOE can return focus to the important mission of providing Montgomery County students the best possible education.”

- posted by Andy @ 7:00 PM  

 
Advocates of New Sex-Ed Curriculum Admit They Are NOT Educational Experts, Decline to Answer Reader's Questions

Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum was recently carbon copied (cc'd) on an email message to a group that promotes the new MCPS Sex-Ed curriculum. The message from Mr. Brandon Cotton was also cc’d to; the Washington Times, the Washington Post, Advocates for Youth, the Gazette newspaper, recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com, the MCPS Board of Education, and Mr. David Fishback, the MCPS BOE’s current Sex-Ed Committee Chairman.

Mr. Cotton's original letter asked the pro-curriculum group questions about homosexuality. A co-founder of the group declined to answer his questions stating, "The members of Teachthefacts.org are "just parents"". However, Mr. Cotton's perception was that they are educational experts since they promote the new curriculum (their website states: "Who we are - We are parents, teachers, students, clergy, health professionals, scientists, and journalists...").

Below are three messages: the first is Mr. Cotton's reply to Teachthefacts.org, the second is Teachthefacts.org's response to Mr. Cotton's questions, and the third is the original email message from Mr. Cotton to Teachthefacts.org after viewing their website. Mr. Cotton has granted CRC written permission to post his correspondance. If you would like to provide answers to any of Mr. Cotton's questions please write us, we have agreed to forward them to him.

--------

Dear [TeachTheFacts.org],

Your response is enlightening, although not in the sense I was expecting. The fact of the matter, is that high schools in the United States are not providing students with the hard science and math skills they need in order to compete in the World economy. We are 14th among industrialized nations in this area, and that does not include China and India. In fact, every year India produces 250,000 engineering bacheloriates while the U.S. only produces 70,000. As a manager in the tech sector I can tell you that your children are not going to provide nearly the value to tech companies that overseas candidates will. And if the fate of your children is not enough to force you to reassess your priorities then think about how this will affect you when you are relying on assisted living. How will you pay for your care or buy your medication if your money is worth 1/2 or 1/3 of what it is today?

And why are we failing to do our duty in educating our children? Because many people are more concerned with a political agenda than ensuring the nation's students are equipped to function in the modern age. There are those that seem to be think that teaching pseudoscientific facts to students will produce better social harmony or tolerance of others. If you honestly look to the future you'll have to recognize that the ultimate consequence of this equation is that jobs will be moved overseas, our economy will suffer, Americans will have to be more competitive for every dollar, and as a result cultural harmony will be much less important than getting a paycheck. The education dollars you fight for now to prove your point may very well come two or three fold out of your wallet in 10 or 20 years.

The questions below were about statements made by TeachTheFacts.org on your web site; I think they were reasonable in light of your many bold assertions. If you propose to "teach the facts" then I think it is fair to want know how you got your facts. I don't pretend to be qualified to determine what children should learn, but you do. You should not make assertions you cannot back up, so if you cannot respond to a few logical questions about your policies then I have to conclude that you are either naively unconcerned with logic and science, or do not have the capacity to formulate rational arguments in the face of critical questions. In addition, a couple of my questions were not scientific, but about your views on religion and morality (and by proxy what you intend to teach children), and yet you choose not to defend your position. Therefore, besides making baseless scientific claims, from the statements made on your site it appears you are bigoted against religious people and are unremorseful for your prejudice. Therefore, I find it hard to understand how you can view yourself as an enlightened advocate for social harmony.

It is unfortunate for all of us that your organization feels that it is acceptable to achieve your political agenda at the expense of your and others' children. Considering the statements made on your site, in combination with your response, I believe that anyone who would listen to you on questions of importance is a fool. I am baffled as to how you can expect any intelligent person to take you seriously.

Thanks,
Brandon Cotton

"Our education system is obsolete, and we should be ashamed."
- Bill Gates in a speech made on 2/24/05 to the National Governors Association

PS: If anyone who has read this CAN answer my questions I would appreciate it very much. [As noted above this message was cc’d to the Washington Times, Washington Post, Advocates for Youth, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, The Gazette, recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com, the MCPS Board of Education, and Mr. David Fishback, the MCPS BOE’s current Sex-Ed Committee Chairman]

--------

On Feb 25, 2005 [TeachTheFacts.org] wrote:

Thank you for your inquiry at Teachthefacts.org. I'm afraid your presumption ("I presume that since your organization promotes an educational curriculum that you are experts on the subject.") is incorrect. The members of Teachthefacts.org are "just parents" of Montgomery County Public School students. We are working to support the MCPS Board of Education's sage decision to modernize the health education curriculum at the request of MCPS health educators.

If you want to learn more about your roommates' lives, a simple search at http://www.google.com for the topics you seek to learn about will generate thousands of websites containing related information.

Best of luck to you as you seek answers to your questions.

Sincerely,
[co-founder of TeachTheFacts.org]

--------

From: Brandon Cotton
Subject: Homosexuality Questions
Date: February 24, 2005
To: [TeachTheFacts.org]

After reading an article in the paper on sex-ed in schools I have a few questions I hope you can help me with. To preface this I have two gay roommates, although I myself am straight. I've lived here for going on 7 years. We've had many discussions about the topic, and obviously I respect their right to do what they please, but I have never received a clear answer to many of my logical questions. I presume that since your organization promotes an educational curriculum that you are experts on the subject. Please see if you can help me find solid answers to some of my critical questions so that I can present these facts to people who argue against me:

1) I am aware of the fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM-III in 1973. However, I have been unable to find the scientific basis for this. People constantly tell me this was a politically-motivated decision. Could you point me to the resource that explains the scientific basis for this decision?

2) You have on your site a reference to statements made by the APA released in 1994. I have questions about the basis of these statements. I do not accept, and certainly nobody I debate will accept, that simply being presently the top authority on a subject endows one with all the knowledge that will come from research in the future. In other words, if the APA cannot back up it's statements, it is no more impressive to me than policy statements from any other organization. The APA's policy statement says: There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. If the APA uses the term "most likely", doesn't that mean they do not know for sure? And if they are the foremost expert organization on the subject, then doesn't that mean that NOBODY knows for sure? I am hoping you can illuminate the reasoning for these statements without just referring me back to the APA policy statements:

i) The research on homosexuality is very clear. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Critical Comment: This is not logical. This statement implies that because other behaviors of homosexuals are normal that homosexual behavior itself is normal. The same statement can be made about most alcoholics who, in every respect, live productive, normal lives - even to the point of no one even suspecting they are an alcoholic. But when it comes to alcohol they cannot regulate their drinking as normal people can. To a certain extent, this same statement can be made in reference to all forms of sexual activity including bestiality, incest, and pedophilia. This same statement can be made about many, many disorders that we know are, in fact, mental disorders.

Question: What solid, peer-reviewed studies can I point to in my discussions with others on this point? How does one counter such an argument?

ii) Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity.

Question: What is the definition of morality outside of the Bible? What other document or book defines morality? When is it a moral act to kill and why? Who or what is it immoral to have sex with; or for that matter participate in any other controversial activity such as using drugs. What is your position on who or what is the final authority on these questions?

iii) It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture.

Critical Comment: This is untrue. In ancient Roman society, for example, homosexuality was considered normal and practiced by the majority of the population. In ancient Greek society homosexual behavior was thought to be due to immaturity, and therefore the majority of youths and young adults participated in this behavior. In prisons homosexual behavior is much higher than in the general populace. In fact, in some countries, like South Africa, virtually 100% of the prison population engages in homosexual behavior. If you took both this assertion as fact and put them together you would realize that if the German population in 1933 was about 57 Million, and homosexuals constituted about 10% of the population, it would mean that 5.7 Million gays should have been rounded up and executed. According to documents I have read on the Holocaust Museum's website it says that only 15,000 men were targeted for homosexuality. It also states that the estimate of gays in the German population at that time was only about 100,000. The only reference I have been able to find that supports the 10% argument is the Kinsey study which has been discredited in several publications most notably "Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People" by Judith A. Reisman, Edward W. Eichel, J. Gordon Muir, John H. Court, J. H. Court. I have read most of the book and am personally convinced the Kinsey study was highly flawed. To be sure, people I am debating will not accept the Kinsey study as scientific fact.

Question: What other scientific sources, besides the Kinsey study, can I reference to support this argument?

3) In David Fishback responds to PFOX letter:

i) "The teacher resources offered to the Committee by the dissenting members all were premised on the proposition that homosexuality is sinful and/or is a mental illness. As to the former, the proposed revised curriculum, properly, takes no theological position, and makes no religious reference, other than in the material I have just noted."

Question: The primary source of the religious controversy is found in the book of Leviticus which a common document to all monotheistic religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is a fact that intelligent people should be aware of. Why should teachers NOT point this out? They don't have to condone the statement, but students who do not learn this at that time will eventually learn it, and then they will feel betrayed. Isn't it prudent to get this into the open in the first place?

ii) That "religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression" is an unfortunate historical fact.

Critical Comment: It is also an unfortunate fact that many evil dictators such as Nero and Caligulous used sexuality for humiliation and control. It is also a fact that Communist governments have killed more people than all religious wars combined. And, of course, by far the #1 reason for death has always been disease. Religion has been used for hatred and oppression, but you would have to take all religious wars, pogroms, the Inquisition, and all other religious persecution and multiply those numbers by millions to account for deaths outside of religious causes. It is only within the past few thousand years that it has played any part at all in human suffering, and wars of all kinds have erupted during this period as well. The Black Plague killed many times the numbers of people than were killed during the Crusades. For the past 8,000 years in Asia wars and oppression have been about land and domination of one culture over another. In fact, driving to and from work is far more dangerous today than the possibility of an individual being killed for religious reasons even during the Inquisition (especially considering that the Catholic Church did not operate in the majority of the World). Of the ~100 Billion homo sapiens that have lived and died, religion simply cannot be considered a huge factor in overall death, oppression, or any other human tragedy. I am concerned that there is a theophobic element being introduced by this curriculum, and not informing students of both sides of the arguments will have only temporary success in influencing them. I have learned these facts in online discussions, and the students you are teaching now will become aware of them much sooner than I did. Eventually they will end up in a debate, be shown new evidence, and become cynical about what they were taught in school.

Question: No extreme is good, and if we are going to be fair and intellectual shouldn't we point out such facts? Aren't you concerned that if people feel that you are laying the majority of the blame for human oppression, hatred, tyranny, and death on religion that you may not be considered objective?

Thank you for taking the time to read through my questions. I hope that you can help me because I am constantly being countered on these things.

Very Best,
Brandon Cotton

[For the referenced Washington Times article] See http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050209-113152-2518r.htm

- posted by MrADMN @ 11:30 AM  

 
Homosexual Youth and Suicide -- The Politics of Deceit, part 1


You want to talk about the politics of deceit?

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has certainly been a fertile battleground on issues of sex-ed and homosexuality. It would do us well here in Montgomery County to see exactly what has gone on in other places not so long ago, before the fight came to our doorstep.

Let me tell you about GLSEN's "pioneering work" in Massachusetts. Here is a long quote from Kevin Jennings, Executive Director of GLSEN describing the crafty tactics used in Massachusetts in 1995:

"If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language -- 'promoting homosexuality' is one example -- is laced with subtle and not so subtle innuendo that we are 'after their kids.' We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term 'pro-life' allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate ever begins.

"In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card—safety—and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. [We will examine in part 2 just how they used bogus suicide statistics to their advantage.] Titling our report, ‘Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,’ we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.

"Finding the effective frame for your community is the key to victory. It must be linked to universal values that everyone in the community has in common.

"In Massachusetts, no one could speak up against our frame and say, ‘Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves’; this allowed us to set the terms for the debate.

"In Massachusetts, we made creating an environment where youth could speak out our number one priority. We know that, confronted with real- live stories of youth who had suffered from homophobia, our opponents would have to attack people who had been victimized once, which put them in a bully position from which it would be hard to emerge looking good. More importantly, we made sure these youth met with elected officials so that, the next time these officials had to vote on something, there would be a specific face and story attached to the issue. We wanted them to have an actual kid in mind when they had to cast their votes. We won the vote in the Senate 33-7 as a result.”

[These quotes come from an article published in The Massachusetts News.]

Hey Montgomery County BOE -- we want schools that are 'safe' for all children as well. Not only one side has a lock on safety. Schools where children are free to be themselves and not pushed into identifying early as something they are not. A school environment where parents feel safe to express concerns about their children and the curriculum that they are being taught.

- posted by bianca m @ 11:57 AM