FACT - Condoms can't protect from some STDs
From Maine Today:
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Condoms can't protect from some STDs
A recent article on human papillomavirus (HPV) and its link to cervical
cancer read like Planned Parenthood's misinformation.
She writes: "The virus can be passed via unprotected sex at an early age." She neglects to give the life-saving information that the virus can be passed just as easily via so-called "protected" sex at any age.
Even if one uses a condom, they are not protected. Unlike other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which are spread through bodily fluids, HPV is spread through skin-to-skin contact, effecting the entire genital area. Like a cold virus, it can also be transferred by fingers. It is not possible for condoms to protect against this virus since they cover so little of the area that can become infected.
Scientists now tell us that HPV is the cause of all cervical cancer, which kills over 5,000 U.S. women annually. It is more contagious, and is responsible for more deaths every year in the U.S. than AIDS. (Centers for Disease Control)
It is easy to understand why Maine leads the nation in cervical cancer rates. The lie that condoms promote "safe" sex is taught in our public schools and some even hand them out to our kids. The STD epidemic will continue to rise as long as the "safe" sex lie is allowed to continue. Only the teaching of chastity and abstinence can save most of our kids from these horrible diseases.
Superintendent Weast: Dissolve the CAC
Ealier tonight at the BOE meeting, Superintendent Jerry Weast announced that it is the Board's intention to dissolve the Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Developmenmt effective immediately and start fresh; throw out the four resources that Judge Williams objected to in the new currciulum and begin to develop a new sex-ed currciulum that includes information on sexual 'variations' as provided by COMAR. Read the full text of the resolution adopted by the Board of Education here. “We have an opportunity now to move ahead with a fresh look at this curriculum,” Dr. Weast said. “The health education program deserves the same rigorous attention to a professionally developed sequence of studies that we would expect in all of our instructional areas.”
More information will be forthcoming as we digest exactly what transpired at the BOE meeting tonight. As always, stay up to date by checking this blog and our CRC website frequently.
An amazing turn of events by all accounts. Stay tuned...
Spinning Schools Across America
“Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel”
This brochure is listed as a Teacher Resource in the new MCPS Sex-Ed curriculum and is also used by many schools across our country. It is available online at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/facts.pdf
Let’s examine some statements in this pamphlet:
“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.”
It appears to say that those religions which maintain that homosexual behaviors are wrong also believe that those with same-sex attractions should be discriminated against!! This is an illogical leap from one idea to another in an attempt to label conservative Christians and those of other faiths as, discriminatory.
“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.”
So, churches that support transformational ministry do not love or accept those who are homosexual? No love and no acceptance: what an accusation! Not.
“Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”
“The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great…
Clearly, this pamphlet is completely biased against 1) reparative (reorientation) therapy and 2) churches that would help individuals change their sexual orientation.
Why are schools in the
Shouldn’t schools be encouraging students to resist adopting sexual labels at this time in their lives? Or, have the schools abandoned common sense under pressure from liberal activist groups within the education community?
Unless more parents and citizens speak up, school systems will continue to pry children away from their parent’s values and indoctrinate them however they wish.
Same-Sex Marriage: Not in Kids' Interest?
The new Montgomery County Public Schools' Sex-Ed curriculum teaches children several new definitions of a family that, in reality, redefines the term "family" to include any number of people that only have 'feelings' towards each other, regardless of any other aspect (like gender, love, committment, etc.). Even in light of the Maryland Comprehensive Health Education Program (in the Code of Maryland Regulations - COMAR) states as a goal;
"To recognize the family as a basic unit of society that perpetuates life and promotes healthy growth and development..."So while not directly tied to the curriculum, the recently published below article* is included here because it explores one aspect of the new familial definition that the school system is aspousing, and its effects on children in such an environment.
_______________________
OTTAWA, MAY 21, 2005 (Zenit.org). - Spain and Canada are steadily moving toward the legalization of same-sex "marriage." In past months the bishops' conferences in both countries have issued numerous declarations assailing the attempts to put heterosexual marriage and same-sex unions on the same level.
This opposition, explained the Spanish episcopal conference in a declaration April 21, does not mean that homosexuals should be discriminated against or maltreated. As individuals they have the same rights and dignity as all other persons, the bishops said. Yet, this does not mean that two persons of the same sex have any right to contract matrimony, the episcopal statement cautioned.
Opposition has been equally firm in Canada. "Because the relationship of a man and woman committed in a marriage is the strongest core of the family, and because the family is the most vital unit in society, we run great risks in tinkering with the definition of marriage and the family," explained a note published March 16 by the Canadian bishops' conference.
Of particular concern to the Church, and other groups, is that the proposed laws in Spain and Canada would allow same-sex couples to adopt children.
Adoption, insisted the Spanish bishops in a statement Oct. 1, should be about looking after the good of children, and not "supposed" rights of those who wish to adopt. Two people of the same sex do not constitute an adequate point of reference for adoption, the bishops stated.
Compelling empirical evidence supporting the Church's objection on the issue of adoption was published earlier this month in the United States by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The organization was founded in 1992 to provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality.
On May 6 NARTH published a study titled, "Review of Research on Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, and Foster Parenting." The paper was written by George Rekers, professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.
The study, accompanied by extensive documentation and bibliographical references, was prepared for use in U.S. legal proceedings on the question of whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.
Harmful stresses
Rekers explains that the inherent nature of a household formed by homosexually behaving adults "uniquely endangers foster children by exposing them to a substantial level of harmful stresses that are over and above usual stress levels in heterosexual foster homes."
The professor observes that adopted children are "among the most vulnerable of all citizens," as by the time they arrive at their new home they have already gone through a series of difficulties, often involving separations, neglect, and traumas such as the death of parents. Added to this is the stress of adjusting to a new home and neighborhood.
He then goes on to cite a number of studies that detail how, even when adopted children are placed in favorable family circumstances, they already suffer from substantially higher rates of psychological disorders.
Citing a wide variety of academic studies from countries around the world, Rekers explains that homosexual adults suffer from significantly higher rates of psychological disorders such as suicide, conduct disorder and substance abuse. Living with a parent who suffers from a mental disorder or has problems with drug or alcohol abuse will only trigger further stresses and problems for adopted children, he contends.
"The logical conclusion from these findings would be that heterosexual adults generally have significantly and substantially better health, more energy, and better emotional stamina to devote to foster children," argues Rekers.
Instability
Another factor that militates against homosexuals being given the possibility to adopt children is the well-demonstrated fact that same-sex partner relationships are significantly less stable and more short-lived on the average compared to a marriage of a man and a woman.
For adopted children this will lead to a substantially higher rate of household transitions in foster homes for youngsters placed with a homosexually behaving adult. Foster children have already suffered one or more traumatic transitions, notes Rekers, and more-frequent transitions result in greater psychological harm and psychosocial maladjustment.
Rekers observes that a longitudinal study based on population registers in Norway and Sweden, which included legally registered same-sex partnerships in the latter nation, reported that homosexual male couples were 1.5 times as likely to break up as married heterosexual couples.
Breakup rates were even higher for homosexual female couples, who were found to be 2.67 times as likely to split as heterosexual married couples. Rekers goes on to explain that according to this study, when controls for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce were added to the analysis, male homosexual couples were 1.35 times as likely to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual married couples.
Needing a mom and dad
Another series of problems arises from the lack of role models, normally present in a household headed by a father and a mother. A household with one or more homosexually behaving members "deprives foster children of vitally needed positive contributions to child adjustment," Rekers states.
Lacking is the mother/father relationship and model as related to child rearing. Also absent is the model of a husband/wife relationship "which is significantly healthier, substantially more stable socially and psychologically, and is more widely approved compared to homosexual lifestyles," the professor writes.
Rekers notes that openly identified homosexual researchers frequently argue that an adult's sexual orientation has no bearing on whether they can carry out important parenting functions. He admits that this capability is necessary in a foster home, but it is not the only condition needed.
Adopted children not only require parents who can carry out basic parental functions. They also need parents who provide a family structure where there is an environment that is propitious for a child's development. In fact, for this reason, he notes, the state already puts restrictions on those who can adopt, and normally excludes, for example, newly married or elderly couples, and recently arrived immigrants.
Children placed for adoption have normally already lost a positive role model of a married mother and father, and placing them in a household headed by two persons of the same sex will leave them still bereft of this model.
Marriages that consist of both a man and a woman provide special advantages in raising children, Rekers explains. Children see and experience the innate and unique abilities and characteristics that each sex possesses and contributes to their combined endeavor. As well, children learn lessons for later life by seeing both parents working together in child rearing.
Reker argues that a heterosexual marriage provides a child with four models that provide strong advantages to a child who grows up to become a married adult:
-- A heterosocial role model of a stable married male/female relationship.
-- A heterosocial role model of mother and father coordinating co-parenting.
-- A parenting role model of father-child relationship.
-- A parenting role model of a mother-child relationship.
The study observes that the best child adjustment come about when they live with a married man and woman. "It is clearly in the best interests of foster children," Rekers states, "to be placed with exclusively heterosexual married-couple foster families because this natural family structure inherently provides unique needed benefits and produces better child adjustment than is generally the case in households with a homosexually behaving adult." Whether such arguments impress legislators in Canada and Spain remains to be seen.
*FROM ZENIT.ORG
Not Isolated to Montgomery County?
This letter to the editor appeared in the May 20th edition of the Washington Times. Makes one really wonder about the nationwide scope of all this...
Sex-ed battle rages on
A fierce battle rages in Montgomery County over an expanded sex-ed curriculum that normalizes homosexuality and promotes the notion that gender is determined by a child's feelings, not biology ("Tug of war over sex education in schools," Page 1, Monday). If anyone thinks this "tug of war" is merely a blue-state battle, think again.
Homosexual advocates, smarting from the numerous defeats suffered in the November elections, are gingerly sidestepping the electoral process. Better to collaborate with sympathetic public-school systems and indoctrinate schoolchildren to ensure future acceptance.
Montgomery County, the mini-Massachusetts of the mid-Atlantic, appeared to be low-hanging fruit — but the homosexual lobby tripped again, underestimating the concern even many liberal parents have with the radical homosexual agenda.
Despite the stacked-deck administrative process used by the county to ram through a culturally divisive sex-ed curriculum, reaction was sufficiently energized to institute a lawsuit and delay, if not stop, the curriculum's implementation. In issuing a temporary restraining order against the county curriculum, Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams Jr. appropriately turned around the defendants' inflammatory claim that conservative Christians are establishing a theocracy by holding that "[t]he public interest is served by preventing Defendants [i.e., school officials] from promoting particular religious beliefs in the public schools and preventing Defendants from disseminating one-sided information on a controversial topic."
If the avoidance of electoral processes, the casting of wish as fact, the conspiring of government agencies with radical groups endeavoring to shred what's left of America's traditional social mores and the one-sided indoctrination of schoolchildren in gender politics seems undemocratic and un-American to readers, welcome to the no-holds-barred tactics of America's cultural Terminators. Coming soon — to a school board near you.
SAMUEL R. LEWIS
Oak Hill, Va.
Not So Public, "Public Education"
According to the Montgomery County Public Schools Board of Education, public education is not so public after all.
This is a direct quote from the Board of Education's memo to the U.S. District Court:
The Board of Education is not required, as a matter of constitutional law, to include in its curriculum viewpoints or materials suggested by Plaintiffs in order to provide an “opposing view.”How can ‘public education’ that takes place in a publicly owned government building, not in fact be, a public forum?
It is beyond dispute that delivery of curriculum by a teacher in a classroom is government speech that takes place in a non-public forum.
What they are really saying is that, they will choose which opposing views will get said. The implications of this are staggering for a free society...
Coming soon to Montgomery County Public Schools???
The quoted introduction below is located at this link. http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/black_book/black_book_inside.htm
"The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century"
Is this the future? This booklet was distributed to hundreds of kids (middle school age and up) at Brookline High School, Brookline, MA, on April 30, 2005. It was written by the Boston-based AIDS Action Committee, with help with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Boston Public Health Commission.
The event that day was designed for children and their teachers across Massachusetts, [and was] organized by the "Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network" (GLSEN).
It is a fact that GLSEN influenced material was included in the new Montgomery County Sex-Ed curriculum. Page 38 of the new sex-ed curriculum lists 'Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel', with no author, just a URL (http://mirror.apa.org/pi-OLD/lgbc/publication/justthefacts.html). This leads a reader to believe that this document was origninated by the American Psychological Asscociation (APA). However, that is not correct, further the link provided in the curriculum is out of date and leads to a password protected page (why?).
The correct link for the document on the APA website is http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/facts.pdf and publically displays that the document (Teacher Resource) is indeed the same GLSEN influenced document that is posted on the GLSEN website (see "What is the 'Just the Facts Collation' and how did this document come about?" at the end of the document for more information).
Also, one of the homosexual sons of the Sex-Ed Committee Chairman is involved with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in Maryland whose story of coming out to his seventh grade class appeared in two national publications, according to the GLSEN Metro-Baltimore website.
IS 'A LITTLE BLACK BOOK' NEXT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS???
Teacher Resources: Myth or Fact?
There is much talk these days about how the Teacher Resources LISTED IN the new Montgomery County Public Schools Sex-Ed curriculum are NOT PART of the new curriculum. Well, here's the answer:
MYTH - The Teacher Resources listed at the end of the new sex-ed curriculum are not part of the new curriculum.
FACT - The statements in the curriculum have a reference, and those references are listed in the back as 'Teacher Resources'. Just because each reference is not after each statement, like the definitions have, doesn't mean the statements do not come from somewhere (otherwise the Sex-Ed Committee would have just made it all up, right?). For example, the now infamous statement; "Sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during early adolescence", came from one of the Advocates For Youth resources (see #4 on pages 162-163). If one were to ask after each statement made in the curriculum , 'where did this come from?' they would find it in the teacher resources. That is the reference. The Teacher Resources were used to create and support the new curriculum and are therefore, indeed part of the currciulum.
Are kids really that stupid?
Mona Charen, nationally syndicated columnist, has written a terrific piece that appeared locally in the Washington Times on Friday and online at Townhall.com entitled Veggie Porn in School. (Her work is featured in more than 200 papers, including the Boston Globe, the Baltimore Sun, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution as well as the Washington Times.)
Our wonderfully getting redder all the time Montgomery County is featured prominently:
"The sex educators in Montgomery County, Md., have devised a film for 10th-graders that features a young lady putting a condom on a cucumber. You do wonder, when you read about these things, why they stop there.
After all, if the assumption is that kids are too stupid to know how to unroll a condom unless it is demonstrated for them, then why would they be smart enough to know that it goes on a penis and not on the contents of the vegetable bin in the refrigerator? "
You've got to wonder, since Montgomery County has the reputation for being one of the best school districts in the country.
" Most states derive their sex-ed curricula, in whole or in part, from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a group with a decidedly liberal view of these matters. SIECUS promotes sex ed starting in kindergarten, when children should be taught the proper names for body parts and the difference between good touch and bad touch. "
Let's not forget that SEICUS was stared by that 'scientist' who relied on pedophiles for some of his sex research -- Alfred Kinsey. For that reason its no wonder that:
"In New York, kindergarteners also learn the difference between transmissible and non-transmissible diseases, the terms HIV and AIDS, and that "AIDS is hard to get." But the 5- and 6-year-olds are not left in the dark. Teachers tell them how people get AIDS, along with the information that "it feels good to touch parts of the body."
Ms. Charen goes on to wonder:
"Do even New York parents want their kindergarteners instructed on the mechanics of HIV transmission and offered early initiation into the pleasures of sexual touching?"
"At one time, the new curriculum was going to feature information on flavored condoms. There's something that will help the trade deficit! The cheery young lady who protects the cucumber also advises her audience of 14- and 15 year-olds that abstinence is the surest way to prevent pregnancy, but, "Buying condoms isn't as scary as you might think."
"Read that, and then try to take seriously the sex educators' claim that they are merely providing information for teens -- not encouraging early sexuality. It's impossible to know how much of an effect sex ed has on kids' decisions, but it is interesting that even SIECUS acknowledged back in the '90s that sex ed had not succeeded in reducing teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases at all. "
Hhmm.
"If sex ed were merely the birds and the bees, anatomy and a few cautionary notes about sexually transmitted diseases, even most traditionally minded parents would not object. But quite often the sex educators are much more ambitious. Montgomery County's school board also proposed (before backing down in the face of protest) to teach kids that homosexual experimentation was normal. Even the revised curriculum still contains tendentious statements like, "Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice," and, "American families are becoming more complex, and the greater variety of households encourages open mindedness in society."
"Middle- and high-schoolers would further be invited to explore their own sexual identity. They'd be introduced to the idea of transgendered individuals and advised that "biology is not destiny."
It took a lawsuit to suspend the march of this brave new world in Montgomery County. A federal judge ruled on May 5 to grant a 10-day restraining order against the school board.
Do you know what's happening at your child's school? "
Indeed. Our BOE is not the first school system to try this, and unfortunately, it won't be the last. But CRC and PFOX have broken new ground with this fight and we can't ever go back to the good old days where the BOE thought it knew what was best for our kids.
We'll never go back. We're here to stay. Are you with us?
Another scientific study you won't find anywhere in the curriculum
Assuming that the site is correctly quoting a British Journal of Psychiatry study: Gay men are 3.5 times -- and lesbians 2.15 times -- more likely to be mentally ill.
As the post points out, this mental disorder could be the result of discrimination. It could also be linked to same sex attraction. If same sex attraction is in fact genetic, it could also be unrelated but carried on the same gene. It could also be a result of same sex activities.
But it's another fact that the "fact-based" curriculum omits.
Internet sites take notice of CRC case
The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto notes the case in his Best of the Web column, and blogger/lawyer Eugene Volokh weighs in with this
I should say, as I've generally said before, that (1) I don't think homosexuality is morally wrong, (2) I would want to teach my children to be tolerant of homosexuality, (3) schools inevitable teach some non-universally-accepted moral values, (4) schools should teach children to be tolerant of homosexuality at least to the extent that students don't beat up or taunt others based on their homosexuality or perceived homosexuality, and (5) there's a perfectly plausible argument for schools teaching children tolerance of homosexuality more broadly.... But such teaching should at least comply with the Constitution, avoid falsehoods, and avoid fallacies. Good motives don't justify bad teaching.
MCPS to Parents, 'Curriculum Resources are NOT of Interest to You'
At all the parent meetings at the announced pilot schools where the new curriculum was to be used this Spring, the health teachers did not mention or show the attendees the Teacher Resources. When asked about them, the standard answer was they were ‘for the teachers only to use and not of interest to the parents’.
But it gets worse. When hundreds of concerned parents called MCPS to get an explanation of what the information that the CRC was providing was, they were told (you guessed it!) the information quoted in the letter is not in the curriculum. To this day MCPS still makes this claim. For educational 'professionals' to take such a position is, well, farcical.
However, right reason made the day and Judge Williams saw through this.
Is one to conclude that this was all by design? The resources were not (and are still not) on the MCPS website, they are only listed in the back of the annual report. Most all of the resources listed have no web addresses, and some are even gone from the web entirely. The CRC website is the ONLY place were the new curriculum's Teacher Resources can be seen. This is our County government doing this to us folks!
Pat O'Neill thinks "it's a pity" and the Washington Times Editorial Says It All!
The Washington Times Editorial Board has a beautifully succinct and well done piece today on our very own Montgomery County Sex-Ed curriculum. Their timing is perfect -- with our complaint scheduled to be heard this morning at 10:30 in the Federal Courthouse in Greenbelt. We'll be there thanks to our dear friends Pat O'Neill and Sharon Cox (current and past presidents of the BOE) who have steadfastly refused to meet with anyone from the CRC. In fact, yesterday's Gazette article quotes a not 'suprised' Pat O'Neill as saying:
"I think that all of us [on the board] believed that it was coming," she said Tuesday. "... It's a pity that the taxpayers of Montgomery County have to pay for this. The board is not willing to back down. We believe what we're doing is right. So now the courts will have a shot at it."
Thank you Madam President, for your outrageous committment of our tax-payer dollars to this fight without so much as a meeting to find any common ground. To paraphrase you Ms. O'Neill: It's a pity. Well, we at the CRC feel just as strongly that this is the right thing to do. And this morning in Greenbelt, we'll have a chance to be heard.
With apologies to the Washington Times for quoting their entire editorial this morning, I am re-printing it here for your convenience.
Rockville's sexperts get it wrong
Published May 5, 2005
Montgomery County [Md.} parents won't hand over their public schools to the sex theorists without a fight. This week, two parent groups sued over their schools' new and expansive sex-education curriculum. The controversial pilot program, slated to begin as early as next week, is one of the most reckless sex-ed curricula in the nation. This is no garden-variety lesson on the birds and bees. It crosses the line from instruction to advocacy and should be sent back to the drawing board.
For one, the curriculum buys into theories that sex and gender are "constructed," not discovered at an early age. A child must develop an "internal sense of knowing whether he or she is male or female," it asserts. That means a child will cogitate over such issues as whether he is male or she is female. This sort of thing might fly in graduate seminars in Berkeley or Cambridge. But in a public-school curriculum, children deserve better.
The program endorses the notion that homosexuality is innate, citing the usual suspects and ignoring dissenting voices. Why should Montgomery County's sex theorists be able to pass off these notions as fact?
The curriculum also takes upon itself the duty to expand the idea of what a family is. It credits same-sex households with being one of nine American family types -- who knew there were nine? To avoid censure, it distinguishes these from gay "marriage." Add to all this the worst elements of the old sex-ed curriculum. Prominent here is the instructional condom-fitting video, whose proponents still insist does not encourage sexual activity.
What's most troubling is that giving the sexperts an inch today could later cost us a mile. As Jon Ward of The Washington Times reported, the sexperts had initially wanted to tell children that "sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during early adolescence" and have them "discuss how you develop your sexual identity." After an outcry, they removed those lines. Clearly, if they had their druthers, they would institute an even more radical program.
County officialdom's arrogance has now provoked a backlash. It's somewhat encouraging that even in one of the most left-of-center jurisdictions in the country, at least some taxpayers and parents have had enough. They are right to object to PC propaganda from the sexperts taking over their public schools.
MCPS Spokesman Waaaayy Off Target
Take a look at today's Washington Times Metro article, “Parents file suit to stop sex-ed”. MCPS spokesman, Brian Edwards says something really incredible:
“We believe this curriculum takes a reasonable approach to the issue and that everyone’s viewpoints were carefully considered when creating it.”
WHAT!?! Just read how the MCPS Sex-Ed Committee and the Chairman who wrote it stopped all consideration of ANY materials that did not actively and forcefully advocate the pro-gay agenda.
This ridiculous statement is a complete misrepresentation, falsehood, and wrong description of the curriculum and the biased teacher resources that serve as its foundation.
The MCPS Spokesman is totally ignoring the thousands (!!) of parents who have been trying to make their views known since November (makes one wonder if the MCPS Board of Education hopes we all just go away or move out of town or something, as they allow under age children to live in a real R-rated movie while at school).
There are HUGE voids in the curriculum. Missing is any indication that many religions consider homosexual activity wrong, whereas the teacher resources INCLUDE an obscure church in Canada that sanctions homosexual behavior.
Also missing are the health risks associated with gay sex, yet the concept that homosexuality is not a choice IS taught.
A truly “reasonable” approach would include the WHOLE TRUTH about the topic for students. This curriculum is so one-sided that it appears the school system is trying to advocate for a homosexual lifestyle, and this is why parents feel strongly enough to sue them.
Whose kids are they?
The diversity police state marches on in Massachusetts. A family told the school that they did not want their son to be part of class discussions on homosexuality. The school ignored those statements because the homosexuality discussions were not part of the sex education curriculum. They would not assure the father that his son would be exempted from further homosexual normalizing. He refused to leave without those assurances. So they arrested him.
Montgomery County may be including most topics under the parental waiver, but make no mistake -- once the forces of political correctness can find a way around those policies they will be eager to force every child to submit to their indoctrination. And they won't hesitate to use the power of the state to do so.