Differences in Sex Education Philosophy Part I

Sex Ed BooksThere was a bit of a debate on this subject in the guest commentary thread yesterday. I found that as I was reading it, I was wondering how much of what I believed about the subject was fact versus what I think I know. What better way to find out the facts than to do a little research and find out some of the truth on my own and present it to you. So I decided to do an article on this very subject. I have often been worried at the level of Sex Education being given to our children is not in line with the level should be. The results of America’s sex education programs are obviously not good, so where are we going wrong? Too much or too little sex education? Abstinence versus more comprehensive learnings? What about the seemingly earlier and earlier introduction of “alternative” lifestyle choices? Let’s take a closer look.

LGBT LogoAs I started researching this topic, I was amazed at what I found, and realized that it is too big of an issue to tackle in a single article. So I decided that I was going to split it into two articles. One article will focus on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) movement in today’s schools. The other will focus on the more mundane aspects of sexual education in today’s schools: the debate of abstinence versus more comprehensive sex-ed curriculum. I have opted to make the LBGT issue the first part, and the rest of it the second part. So I have to ask everyone to try to remain on topic. There will be an urge to jump over into discussion of STD’s and teenage pregnancy and abstinence as we debate this topic. But I ask that we don’t go there quite yet. Save that for Wednesday night (Thursday am). For today’s discussions, stick to the topic of gay education and LGBT integration in the public school systems. There is plenty to debate here. We will then tackle all that other stuff Thursday. If we fail to keep these discussions separate, I fear that the issues will get muddled and we won’t get as much out of this. Agreed? 

So what are we really seeing out there? I had to ask myself this question as I began to research this tonight. I know what I think is being taught. But I had to question whether the reality that I had in my head was the result of sensationalized coverage of the extremes, or because that is really what was being taught. Some examples of what I found in searching for what is being taught in today’s schools were really disturbing. As most of you know at this point, I am very supportive of the LGBT community. However I am shocked to find out what is being taught in schools to children as young as 5 and 6 years old:

 In California (Shocker!), 2007 saw the passage of SB 777, which, as is true of almost all legislation these days, had a name that was not representative of what the bill actually is. A Child Anti-discrimination bill was what it was called. However, the bill was sponsored by Equality California, a LGBT rights group, and written by a State Senator who is a lesbian, Sheila James Kuehl. The bill banned any teaching of anything that negatively reflected on LGBT history. It further changed the definition of gender in the California schools. According to the bill, “Gender” now means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” On its surface the bill seems to be little more than the LGBT community furthering the protection of students in danger of being discriminated against. 

However, the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) has much bigger plans with this bill. The week the bill was signed, GSA sent out an e-mail instructing their California chapters on how to integrate homosexual history into curriculum. That same month, each GSA school unit received a “campaign guide” entitled “Sharing Our Stories: The Fight for LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum”. This guide was designed to assist students in lobbying their peers and school district to include homosexual, transgender, transsexual and bisexual figures in school textbooks. According to GSA, “tolerance education is an important first step, but we need to push further.” Their goal is to “Infuse LGBTQ curriculum into history, social science, and literature classes.”

And Tango Makes ThreeAnd they are succeeding. California public schools are adopting a curriculum that will require first graders to read literature that equates same-sex unions with a family made up of a mother, father and child. Parents will not be allowed to opt their first graders out of the curriculum. The program includes a between one and four lessons each year between grades 1 and 5 to introduce students to LGBT issues. As part of the curriculum, second graders will be exposed to books like “And Tango Makes Three”–a story book about two male penguins who hatch an egg and raise a chick together in New York’s Central Park Zoo–and first graders will see “Who’s in a Family?” which exposes students to a variety of “different” family structures.

I know, this all seems a bit harmless to some. I disagree, but I understand your point of view. You are trying to see the best in all of this and don’t see an agenda being pushed. Again I disagree. So I offer up some of the things the public schools have been up lately that may not have caught the attention of the nation, partly because the national media is not covering much of it:

Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, is under fire for having assigning the book “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes” to students as required reading. Unfortunately, the book is replete with profanity, an explicit description of a sex act involving Mother Theresa and some of the most graphic, vile and vivid depictions of homosexual anal sodomy every put in print. In addition, there are multiple uses of the word “nigger”, which, while it doesn’t rise to the same level of repugnance as porn and profanity, is still considered in poor taste. Click HERE to read excerpts of this book. (Warning from USWeapon: These exerts are not for the weak hearted. If you follow the link be prepared for extremely sexually graphic material). The school eventually relented and took the book off of the “required” reading list and moved it to the “optional” reading list. Why is a book like this on any high school reading list is the real question?

Gay Straight Aliance LogoAlso from Deerfield High School: Officials at Deerfield High School have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents. The school’s officials required the 14-year-olds to attend a “Gay Straight Alliance Network” panel discussion led by “gay” and “lesbian” upperclassmen during a “freshman advisory” class which “secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors.”

In Massachusetts after a school (Estabrook Elementary School) repeatedly advocated for the homosexual lifestyle to students in elementary grades, several parents sued (David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin), only to have the federal judge order the “gay” agenda taught to the Christians.The conclusion from U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf found that “it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.” Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said “the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…”

Parental Rights AdvisoryThe judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where their religious beliefs were being violated wasn’t a reasonable expectation.“An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students,” he opined.“Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy,” the judge wrote. “Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation.”

If they disagree,the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school …[or] may also educate their children at home,” the judge said.

OK, enough about what is going on out there. I was keeping track of what I found and in less than an hour of research, I found over 40 stories such as these out there from different school districts. I did not take the time to verify all of them, but I think it is safe to say that there is some scary stuff out there being forced down the throat of parents, regardless of what they believe. 

So the question becomes, should any of this stuff be pushed in our public school system? I submit that the answer to that is no. Often the argument is that if we don’t do so, we are setting ourselves up to discriminate against LGBT folks. I think that this is a flawed argument. We don’t have curriculums dedicated to teaching tolerance of black people in America. We don’t have curriculums dedicated to teaching tolerance of Asian people in America. We certainly don’t have curriculums dedicated to teaching tolerance of christians in America, especially dramatically different christian beliefs such as the Mormons. 

I 100% agree that there should be laws that protect those that fall into the LGBT spectrum. We should never, ever tolerate discrimination in any form. If the things I was seeing were strictly for that purpose, I would support them. Because we should protect people from discrimination and lowering of self-worth. But it is apparent that the intent, the agenda, for many of these groups is not gaining rights for gays, it is to promote the gay lifestyle to children before they are old enough to form their own opinions. And this is being done without the permission of, and often in spite of the adamant objections from, parents who do not believe that the LGBT lifestyles are acceptable. 

And true to my linking of ideas and platforms, I find that the stance of the left that these types of things should be permitted is extremely hypocritical. Because the same party that opposes legislation that makes abortion illegal, supports forcing these beliefs on the unwilling. You cannot on one issue claim that the christians have no right to force their beliefs on those who believe differently, and then turn right around and on the other issue say we have the right to force your beliefs on christians who believe differently. If they cannot force the belief that abortion is wrong on you, you cannot force your belief that homosexuality is right on them. So long as these two sides remain so hypocritical on these two issues (because it works both way folks), both sides will continue to spin their wheels and not make any sense to me what-so-ever. 

LGBT Safe ZoneSo I am interested in reading from everyone what they think on this subject, especially those of you who are a member of the LGBT community, which you hopefully know by now that I am extremely supportive of, and those of you who reside on the left side of the political spectrum. I cannot reconcile in my mind the idea that these types of curriculums are being made a mandatory part of the public education system. And I really cannot reconcile that they are being made a part of it at young ages, before children even know what sex is about. But I am open to discussing it. And what else is out there that I am not seeing? What is going on in your home states?

So I open this up for discussion. I ask everyone to remember my rules on discussion. This is a sensitive subject, and that means that it becomes easy to say something that can offend those you mean to have relevant discussion with. So please remember to be respectful towards others, even if you don’t necessarily agree with their opinions or lifestyle choices. Thank you in advance.

 

 

I read about 70 different articles while researching this topic. I have to admit that some of the ones I quoted were conservative in scope, mainly because conservative sites are the only ones writing about these issues. However, I did not simply accept what they said. For example in the Deerfield and Massachusetts cases, I went and found legitimate news sources that verified what they were talking about. I used significant parts of the following articles:

District gags 14-year-olds after ‘gay’ indoctrination

Voice Of Deseret: Deerfield, Illinois High School Assigned Gay Porn Novel To Students As Required Reading; Parents Go On The Warpath

CNSNews.com – California Public School District Will Force All First Graders to Follow Curriculum That Normalizes Same-Sex Unions

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USW,

    When you were researching this, did you find any actual laws that dicriminated against LGBT people? You know, something like, LBGTs should be fired, cannot buy property, cannot vote, etc.? With the exception of military service for openly whatever not heterosexual, and same sex marriage, did you find anything? (LBGTs are not the only ones excluded from military service, and non married people don’t get tax breaks/other perks, so I don’t think LGBTs count as being discriminated against). When I was in school in the 70’s/80/s sex ed didn’t include the LBGT stuff. I had classmates who were gay, and nobody gave then a hard time, however, they weren’t offensive and militant about it either. They pretty much behaved like everyone else in school and didn’t have any problems. So why the big push now? I’ve come to regard the teaching of LBGT lifestyle in schools as a matter of LBGT PRIVILEDGE, not rights. It dons’t belong in schools and most certainly not in grades K-6. This topic is better discussed at home with parents. Of course, its really hard to move the agenda forward that way.

    • Cyndi:

      I find it rather telling that you have not had any comments\replies to what you posted. I think you have actually hit the nail right on the head. All of this uproar about Gay Marriage, LGBT rights etc is nothing more than trying to push an agenda that is about privilege.

      • RWBoveroux,

        Ellen responded to me in #19. I responded back to her, but she, nor anyone else, has commented on my response to her. Still, it is rather telling because I believe I asked a fair question…(even with my typos 🙄 )

  2. USW,

    This response is one that you are not going to like, but that is just the way it is.

    I have a problem with your “politics as usual” stance on the issue of homosexuality and lesbianism. You say in the same sentence that you are against this sort of education and that you are soooo supportive of homosexuals and lesbians. I just do not understand how you can be both for and against an issue.

    I will let you answer that if you want to, or not if you don’t want to.

    As for any kind of sex education carried out in public schools – That just doesn’t belong there. Not in any way shape or form. Why? All this does is further separate the child from the parent. This has just gotten way out of hand with all the new rules and such – Did you run across any articles where the schools are handing out condoms to teenagers in your research? Also, did you find any articles about how girls as young as twelve now can get an abortion WITHOUT her parents knowledge or consent? Its out there, all you have to do is look.

    As far as shoving “alternative lifestyles” at our children and grandchildren as young as five years of age . . . That just makes me sick!

    I do not care what consenting adults do within the confines of their own homes and bedrooms, but I draw the line when politicians decide to make laws demanding that I or my children and grandchildren accept and applaud those who engage in deviant sexual behavior – and that includes teaching that garbage to children as young as five years old.

    Oh, and this is within this same topic since it is being forced into our educational system, did you know that the Senate is now considering ways to widen the anti-bad-thought legislation for “hate crimes”? All of this is just disgusting, way too disgusting!

    • USWeapon says:

      I have a problem with your “politics as usual” stance on the issue of homosexuality and lesbianism. You say in the same sentence that you are against this sort of education and that you are soooo supportive of homosexuals and lesbians. I just do not understand how you can be both for and against an issue.

      GA, it is quite simple. I am very supportive of certain aspects of the LGBT community. I have gone on record on this site as supporting gay marriage. I have no problem at all with those who are in that community. At the same time, I do not think that teaching your beliefs belongs in the classroom. In that way, I feel that I am quite consistent. I object to christians pushing their belief on others in the same way. I am not sure why you feel that if I disagree with a certain aspect of the LGBT agenda then I am lying when I say that I support them. Your claim seems to me like if you discipline a child for doing something you think is wrong, then you can no longer say that you love and support your child.

      As for those other things that you asked if I found. Yes I did. As I said, today’s post is sticking to the issue of LGBT issues in the classroom, while Wednesday night’s post will cover the other aspects of sex education.

  3. RWBoveroux says:

    US:

    There is a slippery slope that this country starts going down when we think that someone’s PERSONAL CHOICE is going to be the basis of legislation. That is where we are with the issues that you have written on today. In the 10 minutes or so of research that I did this morning, I have NOT found any scientific, peer reviewed, widely accepted research saying that homosexuality etc is genetically based. I have found research stating that the issue is being investigated, but nothing saying that the issue is settled. So therefore, we should be careful about saying that a person’s sexual choices should be protected in law.

    • You are going to take some flak for that one but I agree. While I believe that there is no question some folks are “born” that way, I also believe that some folks are “made” that way. Like anything else in life, we are constantly confronted with choices. If we have been unsuccessful in establishing relationships with the opposite sex as young adults, we ask ourselves why. This can then result in experimentation. It can also make us susceptable to recruitment. It is the way sexual predators go after young teens, male and female and no one will deny that though they will resist stretching it to include recruitment. We are not however allowed to question the orthodox view (in the drivers seat in the psych community since the late ’60’s)that no one would “choose” the lifestyle. Addictions are addictions period.

      • Danak13 says:

        You can “indoctrinate” anyone. We did it all the time in the military. Take OCS for example. As a Senior Tactical Officer, it was my official duty to indoctrinate and change the attitudes of prospective officers for leadership roles. It was my job to make sure that a prospective officer made decisions not based on emotion but based on facts and mission accomplishment. Plain and simple. Emotions are a weakness on the battlefield but it was easy to indoctrinate and change their minds. The same can apply to class room.

    • Chris Devine says:

      No scientific issue is ever ‘settled.’ That’s the key difference between dogma and science. Scientific knowledge is tentative based upon current research and understanding. On the other hand, received truths are just accepted and considered settled. All issues in science are under investigation, that’s the whole point. But saying it isn’t settled doesn’t mean there isn’t a consensus.

  4. “…ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents”
    Scary, no other word for it.
    What are they going to teach our children without our permission or knowledge next?

  5. Chris Devine says:

    Angels in America wasn’t required reading:

    “In a letter to parents, the AP English teacher, Jeff Berger-White, defends the merits of the Pulitzer-prize winning play. Berger-White says this:

    “If I have any agenda, it’s this: kindness and compassion are virtues to celebrate, forgiveness is always preferable to revenge, hope is powerful and lasting, and what we do for the greater good is what will define us and our legacy. If any work of literature can be demanding, complex, and nuanced in helping me express those values, then that is an exciting prospect. I believe that Angels in America is all of these things, and that, above all, is why I teach it.”

    Fornero also defended the choice and added that the district prides itself in giving its teachers a great deal of autonomy in choosing what books they plan to teach. In a letter to parents, Fornero said:

    “We trust parents and students to make decisions that are right for them. We trust our teachers and administrators to build a rich and varied curriculum. Finally, we do not believe that providing excerpts of a work (as NSSA has done) demonstrates the worth of a literary work. Excerpts, by their very nature, are out of context. We believe that Angels in America must be viewed in its entirety in order to decide its value to a high school curriculum. Teachers, administrators, student and parents have done so. We trust their wisdom and judgment.”

    Fornero also notes the book was made an opt-in selection. A note was sent home to parents asking them to review the work and decide if they wanted their child to read it, an alternate work “The Plague” by Albert Camus, or both.” (In a letter to parents, the AP English teacher, Jeff Berger-White, defends the merits of the pulitzer-prize winning play. Berger-White says this:

    “If I have any agenda, it’s this: kindness and compassion are virtues to celebrate, forgiveness is always preferable to revenge, hope is powerful and lasting, and what we do for the greater good is what will define us and our legacy. If any work of literature can be demanding, complex, and nuanced in helping me express those values, then that is an exciting prospect. I believe that Angels in America is all of these things, and that, above all, is why I teach it.”

    Fornero also defended the choice and added that the district prides itself in giving its teachers a great deal of autonomy in choosing what books they plan to teach. In a letter to parents, Fornero said:

    “We trust parents and students to make decisions that are right for them. We trust our teachers and administrators to build a rich and varied curriculum. Finally, we do not believe that providing excerpts of a work (as NSSA has done) demonstrates the worth of a literary work. Excerpts, by their very nature, are out of context. We believe that Angels in America must be viewed in its entirety in order to decide its value to a high school curriculum. Teachers, administrators, student and parents have done so. We trust their wisdom and judgment.”

    Fornero also notes the book was made an opt-in selection. A note was sent home to parents asking them to review the work and decide if they wanted their child to read it, an alternate work “The Plague” by Albert Camus, or both.In a letter to parents, the AP English teacher, Jeff Berger-White, defends the merits of the pulitzer-prize winning play. Berger-White says this:

    “If I have any agenda, it’s this: kindness and compassion are virtues to celebrate, forgiveness is always preferable to revenge, hope is powerful and lasting, and what we do for the greater good is what will define us and our legacy. If any work of literature can be demanding, complex, and nuanced in helping me express those values, then that is an exciting prospect. I believe that Angels in America is all of these things, and that, above all, is why I teach it.”

    Fornero also defended the choice and added that the district prides itself in giving its teachers a great deal of autonomy in choosing what books they plan to teach. In a letter to parents, Fornero said:

    “We trust parents and students to make decisions that are right for them. We trust our teachers and administrators to build a rich and varied curriculum. Finally, we do not believe that providing excerpts of a work (as NSSA has done) demonstrates the worth of a literary work. Excerpts, by their very nature, are out of context. We believe that Angels in America must be viewed in its entirety in order to decide its value to a high school curriculum. Teachers, administrators, student and parents have done so. We trust their wisdom and judgment.”

    Fornero also notes the book was made an opt-in selection. A note was sent home to parents asking them to review the work and decide if they wanted their child to read it, an alternate work “The Plague” by Albert Camus, or both. (http://blogs.pioneerlocal.com/lake/2008/03/north-shore-student-advocacy-a.html)

    • Chris Devine says:

      WorldNetDaily and CNSNews are as legitimate as they are conservatively biased:

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_Farah

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cybercast_News_Service

      Voice of Deseret is a conservative blog (and probably linked to LDS given the use of ‘Deseret’)

      • USWeapon says:

        I felt as though I was quite clear on that at the bottom of my article. I clearly stated that these were conservative sites. Why point it out again? As I have said, I don’t take anything at face value, a conservative site doesn’t mean that the information is a lie. Again we find ourselves trying to attack the source rather than the information it contains.

        I saw what you added here, but the letter sent out defending the selection of this as suitable reading material in a public school didn’t seem to prove anything to me other than he is good at smoothing things over. I can write a compelling note legitimizing just about anything.

        • Chris Devine says:

          I mistook those sites as the ‘legitimate news sources’ themselves. Perhaps you should have used the others instead.

      • SO… if a teacher thought that playboy or hustler was acceptable reading material because it teaches, forgiveness, kindness and compassion that makes it ok? Teaching this in school is wrong…just plain wrong. Why should anyone be forced to accept a life style? I am sorry but the LBGT right end at my nose….I have right to and they will not infringe upon them. I do not have to accept a person’s life style….they are free to live the way they want I could care less just don’t try to “Make me” accept it. School is not the place for sex education….teaching anatomy is one thing teaching sex is another.

        • Chris Devine says:

          As long as they only bring in the articles it’s OK. Words are never obscene (they can be profane) and anything that teaches peaceful coexistence cannot be profane.

          Nobody is making you ‘accept it.’ They only expect you to give them the same freedoms you expect for yourself: freedom from discrimination and freedom to live peacefully.

          Sex education isn’t about “insert penis here…” It’s about anatomy and the effects of sexual behavior (pregnancy, disease, responsibility, etc.).

          • I’ve read things before that I thought were just verbal porn, written with the same purpose as porn to get a certain response from the reader. Books that contain gay characters are one thing, but anything with graphic descriptions crosses a line in my mind. I wouldn’t want my kid being handed something like that in school any more than I would want them watching porn.

          • Amazed1 says:

            Really Chris they are trying to make people “accept” a life style when they teach kids under the age of 14 about any kind of sex, realionship ect. That is the kicker. If it is only about sex education then that needs to be taught to high schoolers not grade schoolers. When they teach to kids under the age of 14 about sex and realtionships then they are teaching or promoting acceptance and that is wrong.

    • Danak13 says:

      If it was NOT required, then it should NOT be taught in the school OR the child be allowed to opt out of that class. Is this where you are?

      • Chris Devine says:

        There are plenty of books that some have found too offensive for high school kids (e.g., The Catcher in the Rye, Huckleberry Finn). Shouldn’t people who don’t find it offensive have the choice to opt-in?

        Keep in mind this was an AP English class and parents had a choice to have their children read an alternate text. It’s not like every child was forced to read this book against their will. In my high school we could choose from many books in the canon. Any book that was a mandatory read wasn’t on the ‘controversial’ list.

        • Danak13 says:

          Certainly…it does work both ways…provided that the curriculum allows it or the texts are approved. I am researching now and have found, so far, in Texas, books that do not make the reading list are NOT allowed in the school rooms or the “approved” list. It is recognized that LGBT exists but there are no required readings either way….for or against. Just as there is no required reading…either way…for or against…religious beliefs and acceptances. (ie…you must be a Christian or that being a Christian is the only way.) So far, these issues are parental issues and are “elected” choices if offered. research continues.

        • This is a bit frustrating, because the whole concept of book acceptance or banning really belongs far removed from government as well.

          If government would limit itself to the proper role of providing law, to protect property, life and liberty and nothing else we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

          If people would not try to force their views and morality on others through the force of government we would not be having this discussion.

          • Kristian says:

            Go Michelle!I think that you are right on in that assessment. The government has no business trying to raise our children.

          • You are quite correct. But the reality dictates otherwise. So, if gov’t is involved in reality, then we must control that reality and monitor who is in the decision making position that supports the majority. (ooo…this will get reaction from the minority thinking).

            • oh…I was referring to text book choices only.

            • I agree wioth D13 AND Michelle. We should not be having to have this conversation to begin with, but the reality of today is that we are.

              The Government just does not CARE what is not supposed to be their purview to begin with.

              They are and will continue to stick their nose where it doesn’t belong until the people are sufficiently sick of it to cut the damn thing off.

  6. Geez, If I’d have been caught with that book from the Deerfield schools, I would have had my ass thoroughly beaten, by my parents, grandparents and aunts and uncles too! Times have certainly changed, and not for the better. Discipline is almost a crime in many states, and now they want kids to read gay porn!

    At the very most, a class teaching kids that LBGT’s are among them and they should not be discriminated against would suffice. Beyond that, it should fall on the parents to explain anything else.

    Now there is talk of legislation that would outlaw any negative talk about LBGT’s. Talk about an attack on the First Amendment and religious beliefs. When will it all end?

    G!

  7. Danak13 says:

    Wow…great topic and one over due. Ok..(sticking only to your subject) That is like trying to do a surgical strike with a hand grenade but here goes.

    Tolerance- This is a subject that actually needs to be taught at home. Religious tolerance, sexual tolerance, racial tolerance, etc. ( is tolerance another way of saying politically correct?)are all subjects that require teaching at home. If a parent decides to raise their children differently or an a value based system, whether Christian, Muslim, LGBT ir whatever, since when is it a public school function to change or correct that. I do not subscribe to the philosophy of…”It Takes a Village”. I read this book and it is more scary than waking up next to a skunk. But this is where this country is headed.

    “”The conclusion from U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf found that “it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.” Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said “the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…”””

    The above excerpt is one of the worst “opinions” that I have ever read. Personally, I do not care what consenting adults do within the confines of their own homes or area. If I am out in public and I see something offensive, I can look away or simply choose to not participate and that is my choice just as it is the choice of the LGBT community to choose. To FORCE tolerance and to FORCE acceptance is just plain wrong. I choose to be heterosexual. I choose not to associate with the homosexual community just as I choose not to associate with religious cults and Devil worship. I do not deny their right to exist, I simply disagree with them and choose not to associate. This does not make me a bad person…the “right” (and it is a right) to choose makes me free. To indoctrinate, either in public or classroom, is wrong. Forced indoctrination is criminal, socialist, and immoral.

    USWEAPON says : And true to my linking of ideas and platforms, I find that the stance of the left that these types of things should be permitted is extremely hypocritical. Because the same party that opposes legislation that makes abortion illegal, supports forcing these beliefs on the unwilling. You cannot on one issue claim that the christians have no right to force their beliefs on those who believe differently, and then turn right around and on the other issue say we have the right to force your beliefs on christians who believe differently. If they cannot force the belief that abortion is wrong on you, you cannot force your belief that homosexuality is right on them. So long as these two sides remain so hypocritical on these two issues (because it works both way folks), both sides will continue to spin their wheels and not make any sense to me what-so-ever. AND US WEAPON IS CORRECT.

    In Texas, we actually have a pretty good review board of text books and but I am going to do some research myself in the Fort Worth and Dallas public school system of any books that are “required” reading in dealing with the subject of sex education or LGBT indoctrination or renderings. In Texas, so far, parents can decide to have their children opt out of sex education or any class related items like this. We still have parental rights over our children as it should be. However, more research is to be done…starting now.

    Hope I stayed on subject.

    D13

  8. Chris Devine says:

    “[T]he rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…” What words behind the ellipses are edited out of this?

    “We don’t have curriculums (sic) dedicated to teaching tolerance of black people in America. We don’t have curriculums (sic) dedicated to teaching tolerance of Asian people in America.” Actually we do. It’s called the history of the Civil Rights Movement. Ever heard of the 14th Amendment or The Chinese Exclusion Act?

    “Because the same party that opposes legislation that makes abortion illegal, supports forcing these beliefs on the unwilling.” What belief is being forced, that abortion is legal? Who is trying to make people who don’t agree with abortions have them? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.

    The attempts to frame homosexuality as a choice, a mental illness, or personal weakness rather than a biological trait like skin color or eye shape is what makes this issue appear to be about forcing beliefs on people. In our history so-called religious people have used their interpretations of scripture to justify discrimination. It should be apparent that this issue is no different. Some time in the future we are going to look back on this as no different or less shameful than efforts to discriminate against any group (women, blacks, Asians, immigrants, et al.).

    • Chris, I don’t realy think it’s about forcing beliefs, but forcing acceptance. It is a parents job to teach acceptance, tolerance and the negativeness of discrimination. The school, through the lessons of history can reaffirm this. To have a curriculum that may confuse young children who are still learning about themselves is simply wrong. Children should grow and learn on their own about these issues, not in a classroom that may not teach it in an acceptable way (the way the parents would explain it).

      G!

      • Chris Devine says:

        I don’t know about your parents, but if I had to rely on what my parents gave me regarding sex-ed and other difficult topics I’d be in big trouble. Besides, I heard my parents and other parents utter things I would never have heard any teacher say in a classroom.

        It’s everybody’s “job to teach acceptance, tolerance and the negativeness of discrimination,” not just parents.

        • Oddly enough, I didn’t get much from my parents as well. Sex-ed was limited to STD prevention and not much more. I learned over time and on my own. I made my own choices about this subject, and I did not require indoctrination to do so.

        • Even if parents fail, it is still their job. Freedom isn’t freedom if people are only allowed it when they’re doing everything “right”.

          • Chris Devine says:

            It’s everybody’s job and parents will succeed more if they accept help from others more knowledgeable than themselves on any given topic. Have you ever watched your dad try to fix something that was beyond his skill level? Wouldn’t it have been better if he called a plumber, mechanic or electrician?

            • It is not everybody’s job, thank you very much. If I want to hire someone to teach my kids I certainly can, but we’re talking about coersion by the state here, not voluntary engagement.

            • Do not lump plumbing, building, mechanics or other relative knowledge based skills into the same heading as sexual behavior. These are two very different subjects and ones that have two very seperate moral motivators.

              Everybody is NOT responsible for teaching our youth or anyone for that matter. Each individual is responsible for learning what ever they as an individual wants to learn. I am not responsible for teaching my neighbours kids how to correctly use a gun, drive a car, pitch a tent, skin a rabbit, dig a fox hole, build a bomb, contruct a bunker or repair a lawn mower.

              Society is not responsible for teaching my kid anything I don’t believe is appropriate. Any deviation to that is a violation of my constitutional and civil rights.

              You keep playing every subject discussed on this site as a social responsibility and it doesn’t work.

              Do you want your children learning how and what the proper process is for using a condom, a firearm, a knife, or any other potentially dangerous ellement? Would you allow a KKK member to teach your child the history of the KKK? I would not and I WOULD NOT trust the current educational system to do so either without my involvment and or permission.

              SEX is an area that can corrupt and warp a mind just like drugs and other potentially addicting elements. And just like drugs it should be taught by individuals who are looking out for the self interest of the one being taught; not self serving socialists with a preverted sense of right and wrong.

        • USWeapon says:

          I agree that we can all teach tolerance. But much of what is being taught out there is beyond teaching tolerance and you know this.

          “I don’t know about your parents, but if I had to rely on what my parents gave me regarding sex-ed and other difficult topics I’d be in big trouble.”

          This sounds like an excuse for the state to step in and take over raising our kids. And that is wrong. It is far too easy these days for those on the left to make that statement and use it as justification to teach children what they believe children should learn. You would be up in arms if we were supporting teachers who were in the classroom teaching that being gay is deviant or a mental disorder because you believe differently, yet you think it is Ok to teach that it is normal because you agree. I personally feel the same way that you do in terms of being gay, but unlike you, I don’t believe that we have the right to undermine parents who believe differently.

          • Chris Devine says:

            Take any issue (besides this one) that impacts how a child sees the world and make the same argument that educators don’t have a responsibility to correct misinformation from any source (regardless whether it comes from friends or family). If your parents tell you that people get sick because they are possessed and medicine is pointless, don’t you think somebody should point this out as false? If your friends tell you that smoking won’t hurt you, doesn’t somebody have a responsibility to set you straight?

            Are you honestly proposing that parents should be allowed to tell their kids anything (regardless of how kooky it sounds) and attempts by teachers to correct the kids are inappropriate because it undermines their parents’ authority? By the same token, if a teacher tells my kids that George Washington never told a lie or that Columbus discovered America I am going to tell my kids the truth.

            That is what I mean when I say it’s everybody’s job. Parents have a responsibility to raise their children, but that doesn’t give them the right to fill them up with nonsense. Similarly, if anybody tries to tell my kids that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah’s flood and that the Earth is only six thousand years old I’m going to point out how ludicrous that sounds.

            Why is it that everybody wants to blame teachers for stupid kids, but nobody ever blames the parents?

            • USWeapon says:

              You are attempting to equate a belief held by a very significant portion of Americans to fringe beliefs. That is not an accurate or fair way to make an argument. Turn that one around. If some folks feel that medicine is pointless do you think it is the job of the schools system to make sure that everyone knows that this is a belief that should not be attacked or made fun of? Parents that believe that the bible says that homosexuality is wrong are not kooky. They are religious. And because you believe differently does not make them kooky. Your attempts to link this particular religious belief, that is fairly widespread and a topic of large public debate, to fringe crackpot theories is disingenuous at best. For the record I think that your belief that global warming is a man made phenomenon is far more kooky than believing any bible story, but you deem that kooky madness as appropriate for schools. That isn’t to engage you in another MMGW debate, only to point out that you seem OK with beliefs so long as they are yours.

              • Chris Devine says:

                It’s not a matter of proportional beliefs. In the past the majority of Americans thought slavery was OK and that segregation was acceptable. Does that make those beliefs any less wrong? You might respond that those people didn’t know any better and that we can’t hold them by today’s standards. However, if you look at the ways public opinion was changed you will see that it took a persistent effort across all areas of society to change those opinions. Schools play a big role in reinforcing the message of tolerance.

              • Chris Devine says:

                MMGW?

              • USWeapon says:

                Man Made Global Warming

              • Chris Devine says:

                Why is it so hard to believe that man is capable of influencing the climate when we have harnessed the power of nuclear energy (which is capable of destroying all life on Earth)? The rock may remain but it won’t look like anything we’d recognize.

                Skepticism is healthy in small frequent doses, but not in large quantities offered by people selling it or an associated product like oil and pollution.

            • USWeapon says:

              Why is it that everybody wants to blame teachers for stupid kids, but nobody ever blames the parents?

              Go back and read my past articles. I place plenty of blame on the parents. I personally don’t blame the teachers either. I blame the US government and the “progressive movement” for ruining the public school system and turning it into an indoctrination center for the state instead of a learning institution.

              • Chris Devine says:

                For better or worse part of learning is indoctrination. There’s a time and a place for encouraging critical thinking, but it’s important that children learn the basics before they start questioning everything. I know this may sound crazy, but if you think about it how could teachers accomplish anything if the children perpetually ask why or tell the teacher she’s wrong?

                Check out Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and The Copernican Revolution.

            • I am sorry Chris, but you are ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT imho.

              You state that “Parents have a responsibility to raise their children, but that doesn’t give them the right to fill them up with nonsense.”

              First off, where the *)(^$#^* do you get off telling me what I need to teach my child????

              Secondly, what you call nonsense is almost certainly not going to coincide with what I call nonsense and vice-versa.

              Thirdly, what I teach my child is the business of my wife and I and NO ONE ELSE. If I want to teach my child that modern medicine causes more problems than it solves, then that is my choice for my family. I will tell you and anyone else who wants to stick their nose where IT IS NOT WELCOME to please get out of my life and GO AWAY!! If\when my actions DIRECTLY causes you harm then you will have a basis to intervene.

              Lastly a question; why do those who hold ideas that are ‘nonsense’ (to use your word) to someone who is a Young Earth Creationist able to present their theories as established fact, but the other side of the debate is totally left out of the equation?

        • Why is it anyones job to teach acceptance? I can tolerate my neighbors living in a pig pen…but I do not have to accept it. I can tolerate a drug addict but I do not have to accept it. It is wrong to teach acceptance in school. The moral frame work of a child should be taught at home, not by a government pushing an agenda.

    • RWBoveroux says:

      Chris:

      I would respectfully point you to my comment above about there being no scientific evidence that establishes that homosexuality is a genetic trait.

      • Chris Devine says:

        “…today a solid majority of psychiatrists and psychologists themselves believe in biological theories (genes, brain, prenatal chemistry) over environmental or psychological theories.”

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/

        • “believe” , not have irrefutable empiracle evidence for

          • Chris Devine says:

            There is no such thing as “irrefutable empiracle (sic) evidence.” Didn’t you say you have a degree in biology? Ever read anything by Thomas Kuhn (e.g., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)?

            • Chris Devine says:

              Observations are just observations. It’s up to us to find a theory that serves as an accurate explanation for those observations as well as a reliable predictor of future occurrences.

              • RWBoveroux says:

                I know that I will get slammed for this, but…..

                You want a theory, here you go…

                Romans 1:24-27

                Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

                For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

                More to come when I have time….

              • Chris Devine says:

                You are entitled to your beliefs. I respect that entirely. However, I’m curious why if the only mention of homosexuality in the New Testament is this one why many Christians are so worried about it. Jesus seems to have had more to say about greed (camels and the eye of the needle), revenge (turn the other cheek), and hypocrites (Pharisees).

              • RWBoveroux says:

                there are tons of different references in scripture both OT and NT regarding immoral sexual behavior. Just because I didn’t have the time, patience, opportunity to post all of them does not change that fact.

              • Chris Devine says:

                You still haven’t answered my question about all the concern over homosexuality when Jesus seemed to be much more concerned with other sins like greed, vengeance, hypocrisy, etc.

                In the Old Testament the prohibitions against homosexuality are in Leviticus along with others banning the consumption of shellfish and shaving one’s beard. How come nobody protests outside Red Lobster or burns Gilette razors?

          • Thank you Michelle, believe it is.

            • Chris Devine says:

              You can substitute “have reasons to accept” or “have found substantial evidence to support” for “believe in” and it wouldn’t change the meaning of the sentence. However, assuming that scientific belief is the same as belief in the tooth fairy or belief in God is incorrect. Scientific beliefs are based upon the best information available and are not chosen arbitrarily.

          • I agree, they need to come up with proof.. a gene for hetrosexual and a gene for homosexual then they will have proof instead of just assumptions.

            • Chris Devine says:

              Genetics doesn’t work like that. There are very few phenotypes (physical traits) that map to one gene. Most genetic attributes are the result of complex relationships between different genes. However, twin studies and other forms of scientific inquiries can point to genetics in general as being a big part of one trait or another.

              Read my comment about left-handedness.

        • RWBoveroux says:

          Chris:

          Again, I respectfully suggest that you do a bit more research in an open minded way. According to your statement\post

          “…today a solid majority of psychiatrists and psychologists themselves believe in biological theories (genes, brain, prenatal chemistry) over environmental or psychological theories.” and then you give the reference.

          That references appear to be from a set of interviews\reports from around the time of the original article about the 1993 Science article. I have yet to find anything here or on Google that is within the last 3-5 years supporting your position.

          In the 10 or 15 minutes of research I have been able to do on my ‘lunch’ I have found a number of articles including one from the APA stating that

          “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”

          http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses

          • Chris Devine says:

            From the same page:

            “Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

            “Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States encounter extensive prejudice, discrimination, and violence because of their sexual orientation. Intense prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people was widespread throughout much of the 20th century. Public opinion studies over the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s routinely showed that, among large segments of the public, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were the target of strongly held negative attitudes. More recently, public opinion has increasingly opposed sexual orientation discrimination, but expressions of hostility toward lesbians and gay men remain common in contemporary American society. Prejudice against bisexuals appears to exist at comparable levels. In fact, bisexual individuals may face discrimination from some lesbian and gay people as well as from heterosexual people.”

            “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”

            Shall I go on?

            • RWBoveroux says:

              In response to paragraph 1 & 2:
              You will get absolutely no argument from me that people who CHOOSE (my opinion, understanding) a gay lifestyle are treated poorly. However, that does not mean that a person who lives this lifestyle can expect to have the laws of this land changed in order to validate their choice or protect them from the repercussions of their choice.

              In response to paragraph 2:
              The first thing that jumps into my mind is an old joke that my mother and I use to tell. It goes like this: “If you are normal and I am not like you does that make me abnormal?” the point of the joke is the fact that the definition of normal is subjective.

              I would argue with their statement that “all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country…” Are they saying that those organizations that do not hold to this position are not mainstream? I think the Roman Catholic health system would consider itself mainstream.

              Nowhere in any of my posts have I said that homosexuality is a mental disease. I would say that it is a choice disease or maybe a spiritual disease. My posts have only dealt with the point that there is no widely accepted scientific data that shows that homosexuality is something that is totally outside of the person’s control and therefore a valid ‘condition’ for enshrinement in discrimination laws.

            • Amazed1 says:

              “Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States encounter extensive prejudice, discrimination, and violence because of their sexual orientation. Intense prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people was widespread throughout much of the 20th century. Public opinion studies over the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s routinely showed that, among large segments of the public, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were the target of strongly held negative attitudes….
              how is this true unless they are flaunting their sexual preferences. If I meet someone on the street I have no idea what their sexual orientation is,(unless they are wearing a T shirt that says hey I am gay, or running around in womens pink underwear) so how could I target them or anyomne else target them. As an employer how am I gonna know what their orienatation is unless they tell me. Why is it important to talk about your sexual orientation? Who cares what goes on in your bedroom….nobody knows unless you tell it….so why is it important to tell?

              • Chris Devine says:

                So gays and lesbians aren’t allowed to talk about their weekends at work on Monday morning? When Jim says, “my boyfriend, and I went to a great restaurant Saturday,” do you respond, “stop flaunting your gay behavior.”

                How about if Trish says, “my girlfriend and I just had a great time on our honeymoon in Mexico,” do you tell her that she shouldn’t talk about her sinful life here at work?

                There are plenty of ways to find out someone is gay besides overt comments about sexual activities. Besides, talk of any sexual activity (gay or straight) is usually not appropriate at work.

              • Chris,

                I can understand your point about talking aobut your weekends at work. I mean, I’m a conservative person. Sometimes I talk about something I read over the weekend that is of a conservative bent! When you’re a conservative surrounded by liberals, you’re discriminated against and harrassed, big time! You have to endure lables like ‘right wing extremist, kook, idiot, etc., you don’t get asked to share the lunch table, you’re not included in conversation, you can be the target of smear campagins that can cost you your job, you can be accused of hate speech and called up to HR accused of ‘harrassment’ or offense speech. Libereals think that this sort of thing is fine for conservative thinking people, yet get all upset because LBGTs have experienced that sort of treatment in the past. Of course, the smart solution is to go to work, be polite, keep to yourself, and be the best worker you can. Not only does this work for conservative thinking people, it’ll work for LBGTs! We’re not at work to socialize, we are there to work, so we ought to shut up and get busy.

              • JayDickB says:

                They can talk about anything they want to. But they can’t force me to listen or to agree.

    • USWeapon says:

      “Because the same party that opposes legislation that makes abortion illegal, supports forcing these beliefs on the unwilling.” What belief is being forced, that abortion is legal? Who is trying to make people who don’t agree with abortions have them? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.

      I am not sure what there is to not understand. But I will try to make it simpler.
      The Christian right says that abortion is wrong and should be made illegal. I say they don’t have the right to force what they believe on those who believe differently.
      The Christian right also says that being gay is deviant and wrong and should not be taught to their children.

      The left says that being gay is natural and should be embraced. I say that they don’t have the right to force what they believe on those who believe differently.
      The left also says that abortion is an individual choice, not murder, and should not be legislated against.

      If you don’t see the hypocrisy of the two sides, I don’t know what else to say. Each thinks they have the right to legislate or legitimize their beliefs on those who believe differently. The sentence “Because the same party that opposes legislation that makes abortion illegal, supports forcing these beliefs on the unwilling.” was meant as: “Because the same party (the left) that opposes legislation that makes abortion illegal, supports forcing these beliefs (LGBT issues) on the unwilling.” It is a clear sign of hypocrisy that forcing beliefs on those who believe differently is OK in one instance but not OK in the other. I would expect more benefit of the doubt than you thinking I meant it the way that you took it.

      • Chris Devine says:

        Abortion and gay rights aren’t related issues. Why try to link them? That’s what caused my misunderstanding.

        • USWeapon says:

          Because the hypocrisy involved needs to be pointed out Chris. You have no problem with kids being taught that LGBT principles are OK and normal, regardless of the fact that there are those that believe otherwise. Yet you would have a fit if they began teaching children at an early age that abortion is wrong and is a sin.

          I am sure that most would prefer that I did not point out this hypocrisy, because no one likes it pointed out that they are a hypocrite, myself included. But hypocritical behavior in these cases is obvious and should be pointed out. You would prefer I keep them separate so that your actions on one issue are not rendered invalid because you take different actions on the other issue?

          • Chris Devine says:

            Abortion is not an issue that needs to be discussed with children. Sex in general isn’t something appropriate for discussion with children. However, telling Sally’s friends that her two daddies are sinners leads to that inappropriate discussion.

            Why can’t we just leave it at “yep, Sally’s got two dads. I’ll explain when you’re older,” the same way we would if your kid asked why you were hurting mommy after she walked into your bedroom while you were in flagrante delicto? Why should we tell our kids that there is something wrong with Sally’s family at all? Why can’t we say “it’s none of our business, they leave us alone—we leave them alone?”

            Nobody is proposing that we put everything on the table for discussion with toddlers. However, kids ask questions and we need to be prepared with answers. It’s not about pushing a particular agenda.

            I think you should keep these issues separate because they are separate issues. Trying to link them only serves to polarize this discussion by painting all those ‘immoral liberals’ with the same brush. “They can’t be moral because they support abortion” (never mind they have principled reasons for not accepting that a non-viable fetus has the same rights as a fully formed human being). “Sally’s daddies are sinners because they help each other achieve orgasm” (never mind they raise Sally in a caring and compassionate way and never expose her to their private sexual impulses).

            I guess my biggest frustration is that people take issues like this (that only serve to divide us) and use them to keep us all quarreling while real issues like a failing economy and our occupation of two foreign countries don’t really get discussed.

            • USWeapon says:

              Abortion is not an issue that needs to be discussed with children. Sex in general isn’t something appropriate for discussion with children. However, telling Sally’s friends that her two daddies are sinners leads to that inappropriate discussion.

              Don’t try to twist it into that is what I am preaching. I have not at any point said a word about sin. And I haven’t said that it is OK for people to say that anyone’s two daddies are sinners. You don’t have to say anything about sally’s two daddies at all. That is my point. Which you seem to agree with in your next paragraph.

              Nobody is proposing that we put everything on the table for discussion with toddlers. However, kids ask questions and we need to be prepared with answers. It’s not about pushing a particular agenda.

              It isn’t about pushing a particular agenda? perhaps you can tell that to the GSA. As noted above and particularly missed by you:

              However, the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) has much bigger plans with this bill. The week the bill was signed, GSA sent out an e-mail instructing their California chapters on how to integrate homosexual history into curriculum. That same month, each GSA school unit received a “campaign guide” entitled “Sharing Our Stories: The Fight for LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum”. This guide was designed to assist students in lobbying their peers and school district to include homosexual, transgender, transsexual and bisexual figures in school textbooks. According to GSA, “tolerance education is an important first step, but we need to push further.” Their goal is to “Infuse LGBTQ curriculum into history, social science, and literature classes.”

              That certainly sounds like an agenda to me. And read that opinion in the Massachusetts case again, my friend. That sounds like an agenda of pushing the information out there to me as well. As for:

              However, kids ask questions and we need to be prepared with answers.

              California public schools are adopting a curriculum that will require first graders to read literature that equates same-sex unions with a family made up of a mother, father and child. Parents will not be allowed to opt their first graders out of the curriculum. The program includes a between one and four lessons each year between grades 1 and 5 to introduce students to LGBT issues.

              That certainly doesn’t sound to me like they are taking a stance that is waiting patiently to answer questions from a few inquiring minds. It sounds to me like they are going on the offense to push those beliefs to children before they are old enough to ask those questions.

              I think you should keep these issues separate because they are separate issues. Trying to link them only serves to polarize this discussion by painting all those ‘immoral liberals’ with the same brush. “They can’t be moral because they support abortion” (never mind they have principled reasons for not accepting that a non-viable fetus has the same rights as a fully formed human being). “Sally’s daddies are sinners because they help each other achieve orgasm” (never mind they raise Sally in a caring and compassionate way and never expose her to their private sexual impulses).

              I am sure that you would rather me keep the issues separate because they point out the hypocrisy of your stance. I did not say at any point that “they can’t be moral because they support abortion”. What I said, and you ignored, is that they are hypocrites because they support forcing beliefs on others in one instance but oppose it in the other instance. And you can go back and check again above, I clearly said that this hypocrisy applies to both sides. You are turning it into a moral issue. I presented it as an example of hypocrisy. I am unsure why you are not getting this point.

              I guess my biggest frustration is that people take issues like this (that only serve to divide us) and use them to keep us all quarreling while real issues like a failing economy and our occupation of two foreign countries don’t really get discussed.

              That I certainly understand. But I would submit to you that the undermining of our individual liberty is FAR more important than whether we are “occupying two foreign countries” (nice emotional use of the word occupy to attempt to turn opinion). I will be the first to come right out and say that I don’t give a shit one way or the other what the nation determines in those two countries, but I damn sure care what bullshit gets forced down the throat of my son by a public education system that takes your cue and believes that his individual freedom is less important than the collective. Pull out of Iraq or commit a million more troops. I don’t care. But how about you let me raise my own child and you keep the Borg mentality out of his head.

  9. Birdman says:

    I have no problem with the school system explaining what LBGT is for tolerance and to prevent discrimination but they go beyond that today. In your article, you state: “But it is apparent that the intent, the agenda, for many of these groups is not gaining rights for gays, it is to promote the gay lifestyle to children before they are old enough to form their own opinions. And this is being done without the permission of, and often in spite of the adamant objections from, parents who do not believe that the LGBT lifestyles are acceptable.” I fully agree with your conclusion.

    I personnaly don’t think homosexuality or lesbianism is normal but I don’t push my beliefs on anyone so please don’t push your beliefs on me or my children.

    • JayDickB says:

      LGBTs want their lifestyle accepted as normal and the same as a heterosexual lifestyle. Their lifestyle is not the same and should not be accepted as the same. I don’t say the LGBT lifestyle is wrong or should be condemned, but don’t insist that I believe it is normal. It is not, as I have argued (proven?) on this blog before.

      Homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are different. One is in accord with nature, one is not. Homosexual sex, by its nature, cannot result in procreation. It is using body organs in ways that are not consistent with their natural purposes.

      Fortunately, I do not have young children. If I did, I would be outraged if the public school taught that homosexuality is normal.

  10. I think we need to make some distinctions here. For my part, I think homosexuality is perverse and wrong. I am entitled to my opinion just as homosexual people are entitled to theirs. I don’t really care if people engage in homosexuality, but again, I think it is wrong. Is there something wrong with that? Is that really discrimination? By taking a moral stance on this am I hurting anyone, discriminating against anyone? I’m not talking about taking away rights, I’m talking about morality.

    We should teach our children not to hate, bully, or deride someone for their life choices, but we should not tell them that it is wrong to oppose something. It is WRONG for the government(via teachers) to tell kids that homosexuality is not wrong. It is RIGHT for them to tell kids that it would be wrong to hurt or bully people FOR ANY CAUSE! There is no need for special classes. Isn’t it good enough to ban the actions and not have to focus on a particular group?

    • Birdman says:

      I agree with you. I think homosexuality goes against nature. Two women or two men cannot procreate (I know women can have artificial insemination).

      • Chris Devine says:

        Nature goes against nature. Homosexuality is found in many species including the higher primates. Sexual urges are not only for procreation. Repression of those urges has caused more than a little harm.

        Besides, why do people concentrate on the sexual act as opposed to the emotional support provided by all relationships (gay and straight)? The way people react to this you’d swear they were teaching kindergartners the specifics of sex acts. It seems to me that teaching kids that being gay is wrong requires at least alluding to the sex act. Whereas teaching kids it’s normal requires no such thing.

        Which sounds like a better response to this question, “mommy, why does Sally have two daddies?”

        “Families come in all shapes and sizes.”
        or
        “Sally’s daddies live in sin.”

        If the kid presses the issue, which one leads naturally to an age-appropriate response?

        • I agree with you, Chris, on some parts. It would be wrong for a school to teach kids that homosexuality is wrong. It is also wrong to teach them that is is right. It is the parents part to teach morality. And just because something happens in nature doesn’t make it right. A fox will kill every chicken in a pen and then take one. Murder is prevalent in the animal kingdom, should we advocate that?

          I do see your point, though, about age appropriate responses. Now we just need to apply that formula to sex education in schools.

          • Chris Devine says:

            Age-appropriateness is already there. You won’t find books like And Tango Makes Three in high school and you won’t find books like Angels in America in primary school.

        • Chris, the key word is “mommy”! It’s not the schools job to teach family morals, it’s the parents!

          • Chris Devine says:

            The question still makes sense if you replace ‘mommy’ with ‘Ms. Crabtree.’ It’s everybody’s job. Parents might have the final say (for a while), but exposure to alternate viewpoints is every bit as important.

            • Why is exposure to alternate viewpoints important?

              • Chris Devine says:

                What if you’re wrong about something, but never find out? Would you rather be ignorant or would you want to know? Exposure to alternate viewpoints is one of the only things that will help you figure out when you’re wrong.

                “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

              • And yet, you do not think that Christianity should be taught in schools. What if all those kids never taught about it find out they’re wrong? That’s a weak arguement.

              • Chris Devine says:

                You can teach Christianity if you want. Just don’t do it in science class. Besides, what scientific proof do you have for Jesus?

                If you don’t understand my argument, don’t assume it’s weak. Ask for clarification first.

              • See below!

              • Chris..don’t you feel that exposure to viewpoints should be relative to age??? K-6th grade is not relative to anything except cowboys and indians (did that age me?) If a parent chooses a pathway for a child, then do you not agree that its the way it should be? Did you not find revelations later in life when you were more informed and knew how reason?

              • Chris Devine says:

                Kids have different families. There’s nothing wrong with preparing kids for this fact or answering questions when they arise.

              • ummm…ok….understand your viewpoint.

            • Amazed1 says:

              No it is not everybodies job….that is a wrong conclusion.

              • Chris Devine says:

                Explain, please.

              • Amazed1 says:

                Chris it is not everybodies job to teach a acceptance or tolerence. It is the parents job. If you allow other people to teach your children morals, religion, right wrong ect then you open yourself up to having your children taught anything. For instance people should raise their children to treat others correctly….if you raise a bully, when they get to school there will be problems. It is not the governments responsiblity to teach my kids not to be bullies it is my job….if I fail then the kid will probably end up in jail. Government is not a parent nor should they be given the freedom or responsibility of parenting.

              • USWeapon says:

                Exactly… they should stick to teaching, which apparently they are not so good at judging by our ranking versus the rest of the world. Perhaps it is time they stop pushing an agenda and start pushing an actual education.

        • Like prison, the question becomes is the homosexual behavior exhibited a permanent orientation or is it situational based on the absence of the opposiite sex? Does the human or animal revert to hetrosexual behavior when returned to a normal environment.

          Or, is the person bi-sexual, enjoying sex with either sex and having, regardless of circumstance no preference in partners?

          Or, is the person exclusively homosexual desiring only same sex partners at all times?

          All the above are possibilities having their proponents and detractors. It is best to keep an open mind always remembering that there is usually more than one answer to a complicated question.

          • SK…do I understand you correctly….Open mind to all things you mentioned…. open mind=tolerance and not indoctrination?

            • Negative, sort of, I am open minded on causation not really believing that there is only one reason for everything involved in human behavior. The above was in reply to Chris who seems to believe that the case for nature over nurture has been proved. I merely threw in some extra normal situations. Personal experience with a close family member leads me to believe that nurture in the form of proselytizing, propaganda, peer group pressure and plain old fashioned brainwashing can convince an otherwise normal individiual that they are gay. This was a long held belief before I had to deal with it personally. Us old psych majors from the ’60’s spent a lot of time on the effectiveness of Chinese and North Korean brainwashing in the prison camps. Under the right circumstances I could get you to do anything and I mean anything. I think you alluded to that before as a former TAC officer.

              I am always tolerant until you try to brainwash me. Then the tolerence tends to go out the window. Now you are intruding on my space.

              Hope this clears it up a bit.

              • Gotcha…thanks.

              • The 60’s were different…eh? I went to UT Austin from 65-69…whoa…what an environment. And what a change in philosophical thinking. Just as today.

              • Roger that, Manhattan College 64-68. At that time they were still teaching based on what people knew as opposed to what they thought or how people felt. But around ’67, also known as the summer of love, it all started going to hell.

              • Yeah…what a ride…and (the women will be on me for this) but as a young college student, the burn the bra campaigns were fun.

              • Sorry USW…could not resist. I will be good.

        • Relative to nature I suggest you study for yourself, because your understanding of natural animal behaveior is incorrect. Animals do not practice homeosexuality, but they do display dominance and submittion.

          Appropriate discussions relative to any sensative subject are again the responsibility of the parent, not the government.

          Most parents will advert the child question unless they feel the child is mentally mature and can understand. I would go with your first response simply because the second one will peak curiousity and force the parent into a more difficult explination. It is still a subject for the family unit not the educational system, because we are discussing morality not factual evidence or science.

          There is no evidence for or against the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny’s existance, but it is not the governments responsibility to teach it either way.

          • Chris Devine says:

            Do you really think the jury’s still out on whether Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny exist? I don’t recall ever seeing Macy’s v. Kringle on the Supreme Court docket.

  11. Research 1…..The Texas Education Agency has no required reading lists concerning religious or alternative life style for the Public School System.

    I was told that there are local issues within each school district that can further allow certain reading topics….research continues.

  12. Yet another reason why government should not be involved in education at all. Government is force and government education is coerced on some level. The gay movement in the schools is not about protecting the lawful rights of gays, it’s about promoting a gay lifestyle, making more people gay.

    I believe it is morally wrong to engage in a gay lifestyle. I also believe it is morally wrong to abuse, beat, or withhold protection of the law from any person. I also believe that parents, and not the state have the ultimate authority to teach their own children.

    There is no subject so firmly within the rights of parents to teach than morality and human sexuality.

    As this movement continues to invade American schools, more and more parents will homeschool or choose private schools, but of course still pay for the education and indocrination of other people’s kids.

    Our local high school a few years ago began a gay club, amid much protest from parents. Not being directly part of the government education, I do not know what it’s like in the schools or classrooms as far as sex ed other than that.

    • Michelle…what State do you hail?

    • I’ve heard of schools in this area that have done the Gay Club thing as well. What???? What do they do at their meetings?

      Are there Hetero Clubs as well?

      Chris said:
      “Besides, why do people concentrate on the sexual act as opposed to the emotional support provided by all relationships (gay and straight)?”

      Help me out here – isn’t the sexual act the part that is different?

      • Where from Kathy?

        • Liberal Madison, Wisconsin, often described as ____ miles of chaos surrounded by reality.

          I live outside of Madison in reality.

      • Chris Devine says:

        Not for kindergartners. For them the issue is same sex parents. There is no need to mention sex to explain this to them.

        • USWeapon says:

          There is no need to explain this to them at all. You can answer questions about this with “you should go home and ask your parents”. But that would require you to trust parents to raise their own children, which it seems to me that many on the left are not willing to do.

          • Chris Devine says:

            What do you do when the child of a same sex couple becomes a target? How do you explain the bullying behavior to both the victim and the offenders? You can’t just say, “go home and ask your parents,” when it is possible that the parents’ attitudes are what sowed the seeds for this discriminatory behavior.

            • USWeapon says:

              Again, I have no issue with correcting discriminatory behavior. And I have no problem with a child asking a question and getting an answer. I do have a problem with an entire public education system deciding what will be taught as right and wrong against the wishes of a significant portion of the parents. You seem to think I have issue with the truth being available or issue with stopping harassing behavior, when I have clearly stated that this is not the case again and again. You are simply refusing to accept what I am telling you I believe and substituting what you want to argue that I believe.

      • If what you’re referring to here as a “Gay Club” is a school’s Gay-Straight Alliance, I, as an active member of my school’s GSA, can tell you from personal experience what meetings often consist of. We usually talk about issues that LBGTs face in society such as homophobia, discrimination, hate crimes, and coming out. We get perspectives from both gays and straights on these issues (and more). Our goal is to promote a safe environment where anyone, no matter what their orientation, feels comfortable and safe.
        This is, of course, occasionally difficult; for our first year, we received no support at all from our school’s administration, and no protection. There were students who threatened to beat up GSA members as soon as we were off school property, so I often had to walk home in fear. Maybe if someone (possibly even a schoolteacher) taught them tolerance at an early age, our club’s members wouldn’t have to be afraid of physical assault every time they stepped off school grounds.
        As for whether or not there are “Hetero Clubs” as well, there is no need: GSA is not a “Gay Club”. It’s all-inclusive. And if the student body did want an exlusive “Hetero Club”, they could probably create one with less difficulty than we had when creating our Gay-Straight Alliance.

  13. Research 2….I was referred to this article by the DISD (Dallas), FWISD (Fort Worth), and HISD(Houston). I specifically asked about the book “Tango Makes Three”…all were familiar with it but none promoted it as a required nor recommended reading in the school system. However, Dallas has indicated to me that it is a real nightmare over there right now concerning this issue and the parents groups are banding together to “define” within their local jurisdiction how to approach this subject. I have talked with two teachers so far in social studies and both have indicated that when the issue of homosexuality is approached, and it is not approached very often, the students are basically told that this is a social issue better handled at home and not at the schools. These two teachers preferred to stick with what they termed “basics of learning” The three “r’s”…so to speak. Actually one teacher, a friend of mine, that teaches in the DISD said that she has been asked about this from her students maybe 5 times in 22 years. She teaches 4th and 5th grade. Each time she answered the question by saying that there are many lifestyles in the world and that the child should ask the parent and, then , if there were any questions, ask her again. None have, she said. She is not for nor against. One item of note…she did say that she has been approached by LGBT life stlye teachers very aggressively about her stance and that her failure to address it positively in the classroom makes children naturally intolerant. She seemed to support the article below in that it appears to be agenda driven.

    The Daily News
    Published February 13, 2007
    It is time to speak out concerning the rights of parents in public education. Remember, it is the parents who build (taxes) the schools, hire (pay) the teachers and furnish the students.

    There are schools that wish to usurp parental authority.

    They want to teach their views, often the separate views of the teacher, to your children.

    However, many parents, and their numbers are growing, recognize that the rearing of their children is their responsibility.

    The school system should be only one element in teaching the basic values of life to our children.

    Remember, they are our children: they do not belong to the school system or to the state.

    It is very possible to teach general sex education in the “upper” school grades, not in elementary, please, without promoting sexual promiscuity, i.e., teaching how.

    Most parents I know would prefer their children be taught “not to” rather than “how to.”

    Abstinence works 100 percent of the time.

    It is the right and responsibility of the parents to mold the character and beliefs of their children.

    Remember, they are our children, they do not belong to the school system or to the state.

    Using the examples of those with little or no parental control or guidance does not justify usurping the parental rights of responsible parents.

    Teaching tolerance in schools is a basic part of education.

    However, the use of a label of “tolerance” must not be used to promote what is not appropriate in schools.

    The organizations, such as PFLAG, have an agenda of influencing the local schools and schools all across the nation, not to tolerate but to teach about and thereby promote homosexuality.

    They have been supported by the N.E.A. (National Education Association) to go into the schools with their agenda.

    They are promoting homosexuality under the label of tolerance.

    Go to the Web site http://www.pflag (large city in your area).org and then click on “monthly bulletins.”

    There are the listed names of schools visited, monthly, in your area.

    Ask to see the materials (books, etc.) that representatives of PFLAG are distributing.

    They try to portray themselves as the victims rather than the aggressors.

    The safety issue is equated erroneously with acceptance, i.e., since you agree that we should enjoy equal safety, then you agree that our total agenda is also acceptable.

    Also, the LGRL and the GLSEN are the lobbyists for promoting legislation favorable to the homosexual agenda.

    They have been at work in Austin and Washington, D.C., for a number of years.

    The issue of homosexuality must be brought out into the open for a two-sided, full discussion on the physiological, the psychological, and yes, the spiritual aspects of homosexuality.

    Then informed parents can work with school officials to decide on the material to teach and at what age to teach our children about gender issues.

    • D-13

      I agree with 95%, but don’t side with you relative to any sexual orientation being taught within elementry or middle school. As I indicated in my post sex education can be placed as part of the electives, but never maniditory. Any manditory education of a sexual nature is a violation of an individual’s rights. If a student does not wish to participate in an area outside of the socially accepted norms, they should not be forced to do so; especially when the subject matter is controversial.

      I do give you great kudos for your involvment at the school level. This is a practice that all parents should follow with a fervor.

      As a parent there is no greater cause than the proper education of our children.

  14. Chris, if the alternative viewpoints being taught in school are in contradiction to the family’s religious beliefs, and what is being taught to the family’s children, what right does the school have to violate those teachings? THEY DON’T!

    • Chris Devine says:

      So if you don’t believe in evolution then it shouldn’t be taught in school to anybody? Feel free to explain to your children why you disagree, but pretending there’s no disagreement is a disservice to your children.

      • Well, think about it this way. Chris has been toting the scientific line the whole time. Talking about fact versus evidence. Well, there is evidence of evolution, but macroevolution has certainly never been proven.

        That being said, I tend to think that schools should teach fact as fact, opinion as opinion, religion as religion, etc.

        Here’s something for you to chew on. 99% of people have never seen an electron, but we all believe they exist. We do so because some people have seen them and we feel their effects, right? Well some people have seen Jesus, aka the disciples, and saw Him raised from the dead and ascend into heaven. People feel His effects all the time (those who look for them). Isn’t that a great deal of evidence?

        • Chris Devine says:

          You are misrepresenting why scientists postulate the existence of the electron. The reason scientists do so is because of many years of concerted effort and observation that leads to the best explanation available including the electron as part of it. If tomorrow there was good evidence to discard that belief then any scientists who wishes to remain credible must adapt his understanding or show why the new evidence is flawed.

          Belief in Jesus is nothing like that. For starters, relying on second hand accounts written two thousand years ago as evidence for the supernatural nature of someone called Jesus is not like the oil drop experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-drop_experiment). The most important aspect of science is the requirement that findings be repeatable and not just true in one case.

          I also think you are misrepresenting Christianity. What was that story about doubting Thomas all about if it wasn’t meant to argue for belief in the absence of evidence?

      • USWeapon says:

        Chris,

        There is no proof that evolution has occurred in the human species. Yet it is believed to have occurred so it is taught. There is no proof that Jesus was real or that god exists, yet it is believed to have occurred but it is not taught.
        There is no proof that being gay is a natural occurrence, yet it is believed to be true so it is now being taught.

        You really don’t see the hypocrisy in your argument? I guess my real question for you is do you really not see any agenda in the LGBT curriculum being infused in the schools?

        • USW…I am finding all of a sudden today that the LGBT agenda is pretty spooky. I have not paid much attention to it until now and in talking to the different administrations…they are really taking a politically correct stance. However, I am making headway. But one thing that is really standing out…I took that link that I posted and went there for Fort Worth, and got a phone number, and actually talked to someone. It DOES APPEAR to me that their agenda is not tolerance but teaching the life style and their educational literature says so…..Wow….what I am finding boggles the mind. Now I am pissed again, and you will make me drink THREE Dr. Peppers today.

        • Chris Devine says:

          You understanding of scientific proof is incorrect. Proof in science is about overwhelming evidence supporting a tentative conclusion as long as it works. The reason evolution and the biological basis for homosexuality are taught is because the preponderance of evidence supports those conclusions.

          The only agenda I see is that some people want to be accepted and not discriminated against. I don’t understand why anybody would feel threatened by this. I see direct parallels with the plight of other minority groups. There is no more hypocrisy in teaching about the biological basis for homosexuality than there is for the germ theory of illness. There are people who still believe in demonic possession, but we don’t have parents’ groups trying to change school curricula about the use of soap and tissues for blowing your nose.

          • Chris…do you actually think it wold stop there? At just being accepted? What I am finding is this is not the case. I am going to the websites and talking to people. I was thinking like you in the beginning….just accept me. Ok I accept…but now, don’t hand me a book to “convince” or “indoctrinate” me.

      • Chris;

        There is no absolute scientific evidence that today’s comman man evolved from any other life form. There is conjecture supported to some degree by scientific evidence, but it is still not proven beyond a doubt.

        Evolution should be taught in schools as a scientific theory, but not as a fact that man evolved from ape. At the same time the bible should also be taught as an alternative belief, because there is no absolute evidence that either is correct or incorrect.

        All things historic should be taught based upon the facts obtained and the conjecture that coinsides for the sheer purpose of promoting knowledge.

        If I was to take a supportive position in that alternative lifestyles should be taught to certain age children then I would suggest a course that portrayed the facts and conjecture as we know them:

        – There is no scientific evidence to prove homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, etc behavior is anything but a individual choice. Heterosexuality on the other hand has scientific evidence to prove it is inherant.
        – Procreation of the species can only be accomplished between a female and male.
        – Most religons do not recognise Homosexuality as an acceptable behaivor
        – The majority of state governments and churches do not recognize marrage by anyone but a man and a women.
        – Everyone has a Constitutional right to pursue whatever lifestyle they chose and no one should be discriminated upon for their choice.

        The list could go on, but my point is that those who pander a certain lifestyle as a right that should be taught regardless of the individuals desire to learn are violating both moral and Constitutional rights.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Your use of the phrase “absolute scientific evidence” illustrates a common misunderstanding about scientific research and knowledge. All scientific knowledge is tentative. Theories are not ‘best guesses.’ They are comprehensive and consistent ways of viewing a particular set of observations. Nothing is ever completely settled or decided. If better evidence comes along then understanding must be modified. Nothing is ever “proven beyond a doubt.”

          There is plenty of scientific evidence to support the notion that sexual orientation is more than just a choice. Your reluctance to accept such evidence as compelling doesn’t make it disappear.

          Evolution is not a conscious process. Procreation is encouraged because sex feels good. Sex doesn’t feel good because you know your species will survive as a result. That’s why homosexuality, masturbation and any other non-reproductive sex acts still feel good.

          Nobody is trying to recruit gays and lesbians. Nor are they trying to say your religious beliefs are illegal. However, if you think your religious beliefs entitle you to discriminate against a group of people (or prohibit them from pleading their case for equal rights) you are wrong.

          • I am not going to engage in a discussion relative to scientific evidence; not the time.

            I am also not promoting discrimination against any sexual behavior provided it is legal. Preversions like Necrophilia, Pedophile and Bestiality are chosen sexual lifestyles that are outlawed by society as was homosexuality at one time. If the former three should ever become accepted legally I would protest those styles being taught as well; just like I protest Heterosexuality being taught.

            AS I said in my opening post ANY SEXUAL EDUCATION TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOL IS UNACCEPTABLE. IT IS NOT A EDUCATIONAL NECESSITY AND ONE THAT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE FAMILY UNIT.

            BTW: I am not yelling when I use caps just trying to make a point that I don’t think you are getting.

            “Everyone has a right to participate in whatever legal sexual activity they chose, just like I have a right to pursue my hobbies of hunting and fishing. They don’t have a right to invade my space and mandate I or my children learn about their chosen lifestyle.”

            No one individual or group can force their moral beliefs on me without invading my rights.

          • USWeapon says:

            Nobody is trying to recruit gays and lesbians.

            That is an awful bold statement, because what I am reading says otherwise. Perhaps you are not doing so, but saying that no one is doing so is naive.

            Nor are they trying to say your religious beliefs are illegal.

            Nope, they are not saying that their religious beliefs are illegal, just invalid. Why do the beliefs of those who are LGBT get accepted in schools and not the opposite? Hypocritical. I cannot say that word enough.

            • Chris Devine says:

              The beliefs of gays and lesbians are that they shouldn’t be discriminated against. Nobody is discriminating against religious people by saying that gays and lesbians deserve the same protection under the law as any other group.

              What if somebody’s religion said that females shouldn’t attend school? Does that mean that an organization fighting for the education of females would be hypocritical?

              How is it hypocritical to say that children should be encouraged to avoid discriminating against any group regardless of their (or their parents) religious beliefs? Nobody is forcing people to be ‘gay for a day’ or ‘take a gay friend home.’ If you want to believe that being gay is wrong that’s fine, but keep it to yourself. Didn’t your mom ever tell you that if you didn’t have anything nice to say then don’t say anything?

              Seriously what is all this hoopla about? Is it just the growing pains of a society as it learns to accept another group who has suffered for too long?

              • USWeapon says:

                You sure make it sound so nice and serene. Maybe you even believe that “children should be encouraged to avoid discriminating against any group” is what this is really all about. But I don’t see it that way. If this was about discrimination, I would not have the issue I have with it. But it is NOT just about discrimination. It is about forcing people to believe that something is right. It is about forcing people to accept something different than what their parents want them taught. It is about pursuing an agenda of the state. And that is the bottom line on all of this kind of stuff Chris. Those on your side seem to think that you are justified in pursuing this collective ideology and will force the world to bend to your vision of the future. And that starts right here in the public school systems. I think you are a good person, and I think that you mean well. But I also think you are disillusioned to believe that you have that right to trump parental rights and raise the child the way that YOU think they should be raised. If the shoe was on the other foot and people were forcing your child to believe something you did not agree with, you would be infuriated. This movement is not about tolerance, it is about forced acceptance. Keep your blinders on if you want to, but I will not. Even as a supporter of LGBT rights, I can see what is happening and it baffles me that you, an intelligent guy from all I can tell, simply do not see anything beyond the rosy version of what is happening right in front of you.

              • Chris Devine says:

                So how do you feel about the comparison between the struggle for acceptance by gays and lesbians and the struggle by other minority groups? Does it just not apply? I see direct parallels in the way many minority groups have been treated throughout U.S. history.

                There are still people who think that schools should be segregated or that inter-racial marriages should be illegal, but they are now on the fringes of public opinion. Do you believe that a few decades from now we won’t look back and see how wrong it was to make gays and lesbians feel unaccepted?

              • USWeapon says:

                Perhaps we will Chris. I don’t have an issue with your comparison. And I see your point. I think that perhaps I might not feel so strongly about this if it were not being done at such early ages. If it were high school only I might not protest so hard. I don’t know. We may in fact find that 50 years from now we look back and find that it is wrong to make them feel not accepted (as a society that is). I already feel that it is wrong to make them feel not accepted. I already feel that it is wrong to allow them to be discriminated against or harassed. And I actually think most people agree that they don’t want to see them be harassed or made to feel bad. But right now a significant portion of people believe in the teachings of the bible and the interpretations that exist stating that homosexuality is wrong. I personally don’t agree, but I can see, even in the comments today, that a lot of people feel this way. And that is their religion, one of the pillars of their belief system. So why attempt to make it mandatory that their children learn that being gay is right, and therefore undercut the foundation of what they believe? I can no more support this than I could support making it a part of the curriculum that being gay is wrong or deviant. Because that would undercut the pillar of the other significant portion of beliefs in this country.

                I honestly don’t know if there is a middle ground on this subject. I think that there is and I think that I am occupying it, but I cannot know for sure. I sure can’t seem to get anyone on either side to agree with me so perhaps I am simply lost and have no clue. My middle ground is that I don’t think it should be taught as being right or acceptable. But I also don’t think harassment or discrimination should be tolerated in any way. To that end I am certainly not in the camp that wants to hide the truth as I see it (and as you see it as well). I am not suggesting that we try to hide LGBT facts or in any way make it wrong to talk about it when the need arises. I just don’t think, at this point, that it should be made a part of the mandatory curriculum to teach half the country that the other half of the country is wrong or right, not as long as it is a part of someone’s faith. Teaching that their faith is wrong or kooky is no different than teaching that it is right. Neither one is acceptable to me.

                I am trying to see your point of view here. I cannot yet tell if you are really trying to understand what I think or if you are simply interested in proving that I am wrong.

              • Chris Devine says:

                I know that you try to be even-handed but you often set up the debate in such a way that others feel comfortable to bask in their prejudices. You may not explicitly mention words like ‘morality’ or ‘sin,’ but given the comments many of your readers apparently see these words between the lines (myself included). There is no such thing as a moderate point of view in forums like this. On any given issue there may be a range of opinions, but as long as issues are framed as right or wrong, left or right there won’t be much progress in resolving those issues.

                You may feel strongly that nobody should be discriminated against. You may feel just as strongly that religious people are entitled to their beliefs and that it is wrong to undermine the parents when they try to impart those beliefs on their children. However, it is not the job of public schools and teachers to teach faith. Nor is it their responsibility to avoid teaching things that conflict with someone’s faith.

                That was the point of my demonic possession example. There are still people who believe this in America and it doesn’t matter if they constitute a minority or a majority. The purpose of education is to provide the best and most current information available, not to avoid upsetting those whose religious beliefs contradict such information.

              • USWeapon says:

                That is an interesting take on the way that I present the issues. I will certainly give that some thoughts. I had looked at the way that people respond differently. I saw their willingness to share what they believe as a result of their feeling that the people on this site will not judge them for being honest about what they think. I didn’t see it as basking in their prejudices. On this particular issue I presented it as wrong because I think the stuff that I found was wrong. However, I can see your point on the effect of doing so. I cannot claim that I will change to presenting the issues without infusing my position. That is the point of writing a blog, after all. But I will work to frame things perhaps differently in the future in order to enable better discussion and debate. I hope that you will help by pointing out where I present something in a way that detracts from this ability.

                “The purpose of education is to provide the best and most current information available, not to avoid upsetting those whose religious beliefs contradict such information.”

                I can agree with this. Which is why I am Ok with some things being discussed and not others. When you get into saying that Sally’s two daddies are “right” you are teaching morality, which I do not support. When you instead say they are different but should not be discriminated against or treated differently, you have not crossed over into teaching morality or teaching against someone’s faith. That is an important distinction for me.

              • MyNameIsEd says:

                a lot of this debate comes down to wording in general. I think what’s important to keep in mind is that once the label “different” is put on the table, in particular for young people, they have a tendency to push the ones that happens to be different into isolation, so I would be careful of that wording when and if a classroom discussion would be warranted. It’s been my experience however with working with children who have had not only differences in their family dynamics, but also their physical and social differences, to ignore it and not call attention to it in front of peers, unless necessary (a student being bullied..ect). I think the mistake by a lot of institutions (and parents for that matter) is the idea that we have to talk about and call attention to a student’s personal homelife at all.

                There also seems to be a great deal of tossing around the word “equality.” there is a phrase used by the disciplinarian at a school I worked at “I’ll treat you fairly, but damned if I’m treating you equally.” to think that all members of society should be treated equally… it’s not possible. But to give in to fairness, is possible and in my opinion much more beneficial to the betterment of society

            • US, On the whole recruitment issue, I’m going to go simplistic here. Think Pleasure island in “Pinocchio”. The boys know that they are doing wrong but they do it anyway and they get our hero to do it along with them against his better judgment. Ah, peer group pressure.

              Since I am one of those guys who believes in both nature and nurture, I believe that a lot of folks who are gay have become so through recruitment. They are not comfortable with who they are but are unwilling to try and change. Therefore, they must recruit. They must show that they are normal, that it is normal behavior. It makes them feel better about themselves. These folks have a built in cheering section, so if they ever doubt their “choice” they can immediately be reassured that they are gay, that they are normal and that they were born that way.

              I do not mean to impute “abnormal” here to anyone other than people I think have chosen to become gay. I have no doubt that some, probably the majority are born that way. If you think back to your youth, you knew guys whom you thought were not exactly like you. My wife, the pre-k teacher for the past twenty one years has spotted boys and girls who ultimately have declared themselves gay. She saw it at three or four and had no doubt.

              For those into statistics, it would be interesting to compare stats on gays from, let’s say the Kinsey times until now. While not being fond of his methodology, he was accused of beefing up his numbers, I would bet that estimated percentages have surged in the past twenty years. I would attribute that not to people being more honest, just more easily led and more confused.

              Was it John Watson the psychologist who said that with enough time and patience he could give you whatever kind of child you wanted, ” Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief, doctor, lawyer, Indian chief.”?

  15. Good morning all

    I don’t think sex ed should be taught in any elementary school what so ever. First of all, they are way too young I think to comprehend what is being taught to them. If parents want to teach them about any sexual behavior, then that’s their right. Children that young I don’t think are interested in learning about sex, whether it be homosexual, heterosexual, or any other sexual. Why would they have to be forced into something like that in the first place? Isn’t that like when a teacher taught her kindergarten class how to put a condom on a cucumber? I mean, come on. I think if they want to teach sex ed, wait at least until middle school or high school. Better yet, let the parents teach their kids. I’m sure there are some who would feel uncomfortable about it, but better them than schools. We told our boys when we thought they were old enough to understand about it. I don’t think young children should be exposed at an early age about sex. Children are very impressionable, and after learning about sex, what’s to stop them from trying it out just to see, you know. I think they are moving too fast in teaching kids about sex. I know, times have changed and kids are going to try things out on there own, and what happens to the 10 year old girl who tries it with some boy, and then ends up pregnant? It can happen. No, leave the sex ed out of elementary schools. I might be wrong, but that’s my thinking on the subject.

    • Chris Devine says:

      It’s not sex education when sex isn’t discussed. In primary school they’re talking about different family make-ups. They don’t say “Sally has two dads who like to help each other achieve orgasm.” They say “Sally has two dads. Jimmy has just a mommy. Mark’s parents died so now he lives with his grandparents…”

      Show me the link about the kindergarten cucumber. That sounds pretty fake to me.

  16. It all falls back to what we have, as a people, allowed the government to promote over the past several years. Some agenda’s (discrimination, civil rights, etc) are issues of freedom and liberties and should be made a part of our overall educational agenda; simply because it is history. The sexual evolution and how it changed our social structure is historic, but graphic details of specific acts is not beneficial educationally. Would those who promote the type of literature you site above also promote heterosexual pronography to detail that style of behavior? I think not.

    ANY TYPE OF SEXUAL EDUCATION TO ANY GRADE SCHOOL OR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENT IS WRONG, PERIOD.

    Sex education classes could be offered as an elective at the High School level, provided the student garners permission from a parent to participate. I would also support that that specific class include “alternate sexual lifestyles” as part of the agenda, but the material would need to meet specific decency standards outlined by the surrounding community. Sex education as an elective at the college level is also permited, but again only as it is supported by the community/educational institute. It should also be noted here that any educational facility that choses NOT to promote these subjects should not be forced to do so regardless of a governmental edict; otherwise it is reverse discrimination.

    I wonder how many Muslims attended the school in Dearfield, I will bet none of them were forced to participate in that class or agenda. I would be willing to bet that their protests would have made the evening news.

    This all falls back to the right of the parents to enforce a standard within their community. Education based upon factual details portraying the progression of a race, it’s evolution, history, and contributions is legitimate, but sex education should be left at the home; at least until the student reaches a certain level of mental maturity.

    As a people we have allowed government entities to suscribe our children to an unacceptable doctrine that can brainwash impressionable minds; especially when left unguarded by the parents. It should not be tolerated.

    From a logical perspective I would ask why sexual education in any form at any age is even promoted, especially when our kids are scoring so poorly in the world society in critical subject matter. One’s knowledge of sexual orientation and sexual behavior in society today is not going to enable them to secure a job, or contribute to that society as a productive individual. There are far too many REAL entities to teach; math, science, history, reading, writing, economics, etc, etc. And, I would think that if public education focused on these critical subjects, and the successful education thereof, students would not have time to spend in controversial subjects such as these.

    No one should be discriminated against for their choices, but isn’t it discrimination when one, or a group of one’s force a particular lifestyle onto another one or group of one’s?

    I can’t imagine the KKK getting their propaganda admitted as manditory reading in any school in the US, and I bet there would be a hell of an uproar from the media if it was attempted.

    The type of stuff used as an example in USW’s post (Dearfield schools) is pronography regardless of your sexual orientation, and only those with a sick and twisted mind would believe otherwise. As for California promoting what makes up a family, and using cute cuddly penguins as examples, well that justs goes to show you how whacked out the liberal left has become. Animals (in their natural environment) do not demonstrate homosexual behavior simple because it does not promote prolification and is biologically unsound.

    I am not against Gays, Lesbian’s, or any other group or individual that chooses to pursue a specific sexual behavior; to each his own. And I don’t believe anyone should be discriminated against in any way for that choice; any more than they should be for race, religon, physical stature, etc, etc, but it works in reverse as well.

    Those parents whose children are subjected too that type of education are being discriminated against and those judges who support that discrimination are violating Constitutional rights.

    As responsible parents we need to be very careful as to what and how we teach children anything, and while doing so fully understand the capabilities of their phycological maturity; otherwise those same minds can be warped.

    The government is not going to take the direction that most of us want it too, so we as parents need to make sure our children are protected against those that would promote unacceptable behavior. I did not allow this when my kids were in school and challenged the educational system each and every time they tried to promote an area I thought was incorrect. In most cases my wife (a Special Education Teacher) and I were successful. It’s just a matte of getting involved and catching the fire before it has time to spread.

    • Chris Devine says:

      What about education that is meant to teach kids how to understand abuse and know that there are some places nobody is allowed to touch in a certain way? That seems pretty important to me.

      Also, shouldn’t the biological bases for behavior be discussed? That obviously falls under science.

      Animals do engage in homosexual acts and masturbation. Neither result in procreation. Your understanding of evolutionary biology mistakes adaptive traits for conscious efforts to propagate the species. Many animals satisfy their sexual urges any way they can because it feels good. It is the feeling good part that makes this trait adaptive, not the other way around.

      • Science has nothing to do with human homosexuality. Homosexuality is a choice, nothing more, nothing less. The point I’ve been working towards is the seperation of church and state. If homosexuality is religioulsy immoral, then indepth teaching of that subject is in violation of seperation of church and state, just in reverse form.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Is being left-handed a choice? Should we discriminate against them if certain religions equate being left-handed with being evil? Did you know the Latin root for left-handed is the same for the word ‘sinister?’

          Handedness is something that can’t be pinned down to one particular gene and may have both biological and environmental causes. However, nobody teaches that lefties are evil (anymore). Although one could argue that it is legal to discriminate against them given the amount of things designed solely for use in the right hand.

          • Amazed1 says:

            No-one has come up with a definitive reason for WHY some people are left-handed, but about 13% of the population around the world are, and it is thought to be genetic – it definitely runs in families. Researchers have recently located a gene they believe “makes it possible to have a left-handed child ” so if you have that gene, one or more of your children may be left-handed, whereas without it, you will only have right-handers – sorry! The good news is, that if you are left-handed yourself, you have that gene and will pass it on through the generations! http://www.lefthandersday.com/tour2.html
            Years ago teachers made lefties write with their right hand and often tied their left hand behind their back.
            So are you suggesting that being homosexual is genetic and can be passed on to your off spring because you believe that the gay life style is not a choice?

            • Chris Devine says:

              I’m saying that the reasons people are gay is every bit as complicated as the reasons people are left-handed, but that the only way it makes any sense to discriminate against gays is if is assumed it is purely voluntary (even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary). If James Dobson or Jerry Falwell came out and said that the reason for AIDS and hurricanes was all those unrepentant left-handers people would look at them like they’re crazy. But if they said the same thing about gay people it resonates. Why is that?

              • There is NO resaon to discriminate against anyone functioning within the constraints of law.

                And anyone beleiving the ridiculus taunts of a Falwell or Dobson are no more level headed than the idiots that believe O’Reily and Beck are the reason for the idiot at the Holocust Museum.

                And I would stand against anyone that wanted to promote such logic in a school as required education whether it be Falwell or the crazed moron that killed at the museum.

                I go back to my earlier statement that we have far to much needed agenda’s to teach in school today to promote family styles or sexual behavior. We as a nation are already way behind the curve universally.

              • Amazed1 says:

                Because some people follow along blindly without questioning and reasoning. Just because someone says it does not make it true…..but I see exactly where you are coming from with this.

              • USWeapon says:

                Whoever it resonates with is a simple minded and stupid as those on the left that believe George Bush broke the levies in New Orleans because he hates black people. A silly thing to bring up.

              • Chris Devine says:

                Nobody said Bush broke the levees. However, it was well known for a while that they were a ticking bomb waiting for the next hurricane.

                And this isn’t a silly point. It is a good analogy to something that is a human behavior, not ‘simply a choice’, and based upon many factors including genetics. Left-handed people were burned at the stake in the past and the stigma against them lasted well into the twentieth century.

                We do have prominent religious leaders who preach hatred and intolerance against homosexuals even though there is little evidence for such a view in scripture. Calling the people who believe them ‘simpletons’ doesn’t change the fact that a great deal of people fix their moral compass to leaders like Dobson and Falwell.

              • USWeapon says:

                Perhaps you should watch Spike Lee’s movie. He certainly believes the levees were intentionally broken. So yes there are some saying that “Bush” broke the levees. Kanye West said New Orleans is the way it is because “Bush hates black people”. And that is a point to keep in mind, there are as many or more wackos on the left making your arguments appear crazy as there on the right making their arguments seem crazy.

                Falwell and Dobson are idiots. I get that. Some people follow them. I get that. But what does that have to do with whether or not we should keep the LGBT agenda out of public schools? There are just as many idiots following the rambling of Sean Penn, Bono, and folks like them. I only bring them up because they are as wacky as Falwell and Dobson.

              • Alan F. says:

                I can’t believe you wrote that to bolster your argument. You are forgiven and get a do-over.

              • Chris Devine says:

                Show me how the analogy is flawed or isn’t relevant.

      • Oh..Chris…you do make it difficult…

        Chris says..What about education that is meant to teach kids how to understand abuse and know that there are some places nobody is allowed to touch in a certain way? That seems pretty important to me. (D13…hmmm…great thought….parents can touch inappropriately…ahhhh….gotta still go with parental rights here (k-6th).)Good point, tho.

        Chris says…Also, shouldn’t the biological bases for behavior be discussed? That obviously falls under science. (D13…yep….in higher levels of education. No K-6th child, except for the exceptionally talented, will ever understand biological base lines).

        D13

        • Chris Devine says:

          Nobody is talking about sex (straight or gay) to kindergartners. They are talking about different families.

          • USWeapon says:

            They are planting the seed that different families with same sex parents are normal. When kids later learn that sex is involved in relationships, they will already be pre-conditioned to accept it as normal. Pretending that this has nothing to do with sex is naive and you should no better.

            • Chris Devine says:

              When you think about your parents having sex does the word ‘normal’ come to mind?

            • Alan F. says:

              I still see the other shoe dropping as polygamists, Muslims and a whole host of people with “unique’ lifestyles get in on the mix. Who can honestly say yes to one group yet no to another and not be urinating all over the very ideals of equality? Not a soul and there’s the rub.

              If you carry forward everyone’s agenda and grant them all equal time in the curriculum as they all deserve, I’m certain the kids will pick up those ABC’s and 123’s at home and the school will have nothing to worry about. Nothing when compared to the parents that is.

              • Chris Devine says:

                Nobody is born a polygamist or a Muslim. This isn’t about lifestyles or agendas. It’s about treating different people with respect instead of condemnation. Tolerance for other viewpoints should be taught in school and it can be done without having to grant equal time to all groups.

              • Alan F. says:

                “Tolerance for other viewpoints should be taught in school and it can be done without having to grant equal time to all groups.” yet who decides those not worthy of being noted in the curriculum? Drop the ASM a line and try to feign surprise at their answer. No demographic will accept not being counted.

      • Although I would welcome the discussion on Animal behavior with you, it is not the place. Animals do not in a normal environment preform homosexuality and as a matter of fact with the exception of one other species Man is the only mammal that engages in sex for enjoyment and procreation. Do you know the other mammal?

        Animals do demonstrate dominance, and some behavoral scientist promote some species (monkey/ape) engage in masterbation, but actual copulation between two animals of the same sex is not evident or substantiated.

        My parents taught me that I was not to engage strangers and that NO ONE was allowed to touch me between my waist and my knees. If someone did I was to tell them immediately.

        As far as biology goes I think your comment is moot since 4 and 5 year olds are too young to understand how creatures procreate. All things in time based upon mental maturinty.

        • Chris Devine says:

          I have seen female dogs and cows try to mount other dogs and cows. I have seen male dogs and bulls try to do the same thing. How do you know that the intention is only about dominance? When did Dr. Doolittle become Dr. Ruth?

    • So…I really wish you would not beat around the bush and tell me what you really think….

      Very nice and well put together and spot on…and it seems to resonate with what I am finding so far. Good Job.

  17. Research 3…..FWISD….sex education is restricted to Biology and human reproduction. Lifestyles are not taught nor discussed as a school policy.

    Tolerance of social situations are taught only to the aspect that there are many religions, races, and orientations. No one is better than the other and tolerance of all is advised. (I personally call this political correctness and do not agree but this is research)…LGBT issues are not taught nor discussed nor is there any required reading on this subject. The school system is aware of it and chooses to make that a parental issue (social sexual issues). The same is done regarding religious issues.

    I asked the specific question… If LGBT issues are not discussed, are heterosexual issues discussed as a preference? The answer was an emphatic no. Preferences are deliberatley parental issues and are referred that way. Again, tolerance of peoples beliefs is discussed and bigotry and discrimination issues are discussed only from an issue standpoint and not an agenda standpoint.

    • D13 – you are a research animal! Thank you for checking this out. I am checking out my local school system as well.

  18. For the life of me I can’t get my head around the complete lack of understanding shown by those in power. The best way to alienate any group or segment of the population is to place them upon a pedestal and grant them special status. Its happened here with Quebecois in Western Canada, it happened here with regard to First Nations in everything from breaking the law to the continuous FINAL settlements of land claims and it will happen with the next group to be held above those who are merely Canadians. In our case we’ve started off with tolerance and equality which WAS the focus of social education in our schools and things in such a well integrated and diverse society as ours were never better. No one group held “privilege” over another and being Anglo Saxon meant you absolutely needed sun screen while working outside and being from the West Indies or Jamaica meant you did not. Speaking French over English meant a good chance at not being understood if you worked The Patch in Alberta or the mines of Saskatchewan and our answer to why signs were “Not in French also?” was “Why French and not Ukrainian?” Then someone came up with the idea to legislate how SPECIAL they were, how they needed to be treated as such and thus began the erosion of our acceptance. How could it happen any different in America?

    Look to your own history and comprehend that those who didn’t ask for SPECIAL treatment or status accomplished all that is tolerance in America.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Equal rights aren’t special rights.

      • Alan F. says:

        Affirmative action isn’t special? The very second the past is wielded as a would a club and not a lesson it becomes something else entirely. It’s my own theory that your current president’s scholastic records are sealed because in those first years he very much enjoyed affirmative action when others who had done equally poor were sent packing because of their color of their skin. Equal rights aren’t special rights, correct?

      • Kristian says:

        I’m sorry but Alan is right about this. As long as we are “forced” to accept a lifestyle that we don’t agree with we are going to fight against it. I have no issues with gay people, I don’t care how they choose to live their lives. I believe someone mentioned this earlier, but the only way that I am going to know that someone is gay is of they tell me. Now, I don’t know about you but I don’t go around asking people what their sexual preferences are. As far as teaching our children, this is not the governments job, it’s mine. If my kids have questions about it then I will answer them to the best of my ability. Am I going to tell my kids that it is wrong? No, I will tell them that for some it is a choice and for others it is the way they were born because that is what I believe. Is everyone else in the world going to do the same thing? Nope, but that is their choice. Gay rights is one thing,but don’t push me to accept that my children “must” be taught this so that gay people can feel equal.

  19. I have always known that people will believe that my lifestyle is a choice that I made or something I was indoctrinate or recruited into the community. That is something that will never change. So I dont even have that conversation. Waste of air on both sides.

    So for the questions that were raised by Cyndi whether there is laws agaisnt the gay community. There are a few that I know of. 37 states have laws that allow employers to fire a employee based on their sexual preference. 27 states allow gay couple to have foster children in their homes, but are not allowed to adopt children ( that includes if a partner of a gay couple wants to adopt the child the other partner had.) FOMA prevents gay couples from receiving any federal benefits-even if they are in a legal civil unions. 32 states allow wills of gay couple be legally consented by family members of either gay couple.

    I respect that others believe that my life is gross or evil. That is their right to believe that. As I believe I should have a right to live in peace.

    As far as school goes, I think all parents have a right to opt out of a program that they disagree with. I know that the Pflag in my state and the states around me, they offer afterschool meetings for parents, teachers and office people. These meetings are not required to be attended, nor are they offered for the students. There is only one school system that has a gay/straight alliance club, which requires a parents written approval to join.

    I dont believe that any view concerning religion, political or lifestyle should be taught or allowed in school. But tolerance is something that should be enforced. Example: if a situation of bullying comes about, agaisnt anyone, it should be address and dealt with. School needs to be safe and fear free for everyone. No matter of race, religion etc.

    As far as making or trying to get more gay people. I can only speak on myself not others. I careless if others around me are gay or not. I dont assume either way, nor do I ask. I dont go out prowling the streets looking for young adults to expose them to my way of life.

    • Well put, Ellen…well put.

      Choice is choice and that is all there is to it. You are quite correct and when one makes a choice, trying to change that person is exactly as you state it….a waste of air…and wasting air will contribute to global warming… ( joke )

      I choose not to follow your life style, but I have spent many military years defending your right to do so and will continue to defend your right whenever threatened.

      I have only recently (today as a result of USW) about pflag and what it represents. I looked it up in Fort Worth and it is not a large chapter at all. But they have a meeting tonight and I am going to it..open minded. I hope that I am accepted that way. I am not going there to condemn but to gather information and ask questions. I will have to disagree with you on school topics. What I am finding so far, in this area, that there is an agenda driven movement to go beyond tolerance and discrimination to teaching about the lifestyle. This should not be tolerated in any school system. It is a parental discussion topic. To promote, and force, young minds into any environment is wrong as the school in California. The federal judge was wrong in is opinion. And, what is hurting you, is the violence associated with trying to get the agenda though. (ie. verbal abuse in school board meetings, open physical confrontation) This is happening in many places and not py your opponents but by the fringe elements of the LGBT movement.

      I can see by your post, that you are a wonderful person with a very clear mind and you speak your mind and you are not afraid to openly discuss this. Kudos to you. You are right on target as anyone, who exhibits open hostility, discrimination, or whatever to ANY group or person…..he/she needs to be dealt with and quickly. You obviously believe this and I can tell it works both ways…we are in agreement.

      Good luck and have patience. You and I do not agree on everything but that is your right. I am in your corner to protect your rights.

      D13

      • D13-

        Thank you for that post. Like you, I have also served to protect all rights of Americans, even the ones that dont agree with me. And will again if we are under attack.

        Good luck with your meeting. I have been to a couple around my state. And have found a wide range of people in each.
        I have never seen forced issues on anyone there. I hope is the same for your meeting.

    • You hit the nail on the head Ellen, bullies need to be dealt with immediately by the schools and parents. I never allowed my kids to bully or tease anyone and they knew exactly what would happen if they did. My daughter is bi-sexual and had a few run ins with the bullies at school but it was always due to her weight, not because of who she liked at the time.

    • Ellen;

      Outstanding! You make a clear and resounding point for individual choice and freedom. If we all lived with this sense of decency life would be a whole lot easier for all.

    • USWeapon says:

      Ellen,

      I hope that you can see in my arguments here that I do not think a single bad thing about you or those in the LGBT community. I have many friends that I love dearly who fit that description. I am not one who believes that everyone was indoctrinated or recruited into that lifestyle. I know enough to understand that it is a very complex issue as far as understanding the reasons for why people feel the way they do. I look at a woman and think “beautiful” and so do you! No one can explain why this happens. It just does. And I think if you are lucky enough to find someone to be with in this world I don’t really care what mold it fits into.

      My argument here is only about forcing beliefs into the public schools system. Nothing more and nothing less. Despite Chris’s attempt to link my thoughts above into a moral stance, I have done and said no such thing. For me this is about nothing else other than allowing parents to have the right to decide when and how their children learn about this subject. On an issue as divisive as this one, with such a high percentage of the public feeling so strongly one way or the other, I don’t think it is right to force the beliefs of one side on to the other side, no matter which way the push comes from. If this were reversed, I would feel the same way.

    • Ellen,

      I have a couple of questions. One is, if there are states that have laws on the books allowing an LGBT to be fired from their job for no other reason than what they do behind closed doors, how does indoctrinating grade schoolers in the joys of the LBGT lifestyle change those laws? Wouldn’t the more legitimate course of action be to work toward repealing the discriminatory laws? I would say that LBGT folks are as competent and professional in their line of work as anyone outside that community, and what they do with another consenting adult after work hours has no bearing on their job performance. If the argument were put like that, I’m sure the laws would be repealed. Two, why not campaign to have all legal recognition/tax benefits/perks applied to ALL citizens. Right now, single people are discriminated against in favor of married couples. So rather than help stick to single people such as myself, why not work to either eliminate married ‘priviledges, or have them applied to everyone whether or not there’s piece of paper with two or more names on it, titled Certificate of Marriage? Hell, I’d sure support it. The adoption/foster care issue is a touchy one. I’m against gay adoption and fostering mostly because no natter how hard you try, there will always be people who don’t approve it and take it out on the kids. Personally, I think the whole foster/adoption system should trashed with a return to orphanges, but I guess that’s another topic. I don’t think that there is any amount of indoctrination and hate speech/crimes legislation that will give the LBGT community the acceptance they are demanding. The more they agitate for it, the less likely they will be to receive any of it. Many people are starting to feel as the whole movement is more about flipping the bird to anyone wo isn’t part of the LBGT community. Yes, I’m speaking for myself as well.

      • Cyndi;

        I don’t believe that there are any states that have laws alowing employers, or anyone else in the public service arena, that allow for sexual discrimination. That does not prevent certain organizations from doing so.

        Relative to your other questions I think the general belief from those speaking out here is that no one should be discriminated against regardless of their particular beliefs.

        Tax issues are another story since the IRS basically looks for ways to obtain more revenue. Single, married, co-habitant, other should not make a differenct in my mind relative to how you are taxed, although I strongly believe parents should get a break for children, especially since the IRS can look forward to collecting taxes from them; eventulally.

        Adoption is a whole other story. Given the number of orphans to date living off of the state I don’t believe anyone should be denied the right ot adopt a child as long as that person can support the child and is of sound moral charater. Individuals and/or families (regardless of sexual orientation) should be given every chance to adopt and benefit a familyless child. Give the kid a chance that they would not have living in a state run agency.

        • Comman Man,

          Ellen is the one who made the claim of states having the discriminating laws. I just gave her the benefit of the doubt. I didn’t think so, but I have not researched it. Organizations can discriminate on anything, and do, so I don’t know how you win that one. I’m over weight (you know, fat and stupid) and have been discriminated against because of it. I exercise and eat a healthy diet, but I’m still a shapely size 16. Some people feel the need to critisize me for it and tell me how they think I should live/do things. Also, I’m politically conserviative. I don’t get invited to parties, and recreational activies. So should I push for legislation? Of course not, I just hang out with people who accept me as I am, or keep my mouth shut as to my beliefs.

          I think parents should get tax breaks, and they do, whether single or married. But single folks go it alone. Why are we being discriminated against? LBGTs main argument is that they don’t get the tax and legal benefits of ‘marriage’. So why are they entitled but not singles? I’d say singles need the break more than married people. Who do we have to fall back on? As for the adoption question, who decides what is ‘sound moral character’? That is where the problem will be. Personally, I think LBGTs, and people who MUST go out and work everyday, are being somewhat selfish by adopting or even intentionally birthing a child. LBGTs because they KNOW that most people don’t condone of their lifestyle, and will teach their children that it is wrong. Then those children will likely not accept that their friend’s daddys or mommys are ‘normal’, and treat the child of LGBT differently or tease. No amount of legislation will change that, short of firing squads. So why put the kids through it just because the the LGBT person wants to to play mommy or daddy? As for regular folks who INTENTIONALLY adopt/have children, and then dump them off at daycare or with someone else to raise, why bother? If you can’t devote yourself fully to your child, why insist on having that child to begin with? Now, I understand that people’s circumstances change, and you’ve got to do the best you can, come what may, however, in many cases people have children under the wrong circumstances without a thought as to the welfare of the child. Orphanages are not the best solution, but I think the system we have now is much worse. How many foster care ‘success’ stories do you hear about? What defines success? Surviving to your 18th birthday? If that’s the definition of success then I guess we’re okay as is, though you do hear of children either being ‘lost’ or abused to death. I’m not trying to be contentious, I’m just trying to bring up some issues as I see them.

          • Cyndi;

            First you should not criticize yourself it demoralizing. My daughter is a size 16 or bigger and she is a beautiful, witty, charming, intelligent lady who garners a great deal of self respect.

            Discrimination does happen in many forms, but that does not make it right.

            The IRS taxes singles because the IRS believes you have less expences than married couples. It is no more fair than any of the current tax laws.

            BTW: Never keep your mouth shut relative to the challenges us AMERICANS face these days. Our biggest problem is the sheeple that would rather mind their own business because it really doesn’t ‘currently’ effect them.

            Bottom line on Taxes are that they are not set up to be fair they are set up to garner revenue. Revenue that is used to support and promote a sheeple society. Hell in my state Michigan I recieve a 1099 form from the IRS for every year I recieve a Federal income tax refund. It is copied to the state of Michigan as income, which I have to pay taxes on the next year. So, I am paying taxes on those taxes I overpaid the government. Think about that one for a while.

            I truely believe that if you are a caring person with a decent sense of morality, have the means to do so, and are really interested in providing a sound foundation adoption should be available to any and all (single, gay, black, white, white collar, blue collar, yankee, redneck, or even a Redsocks fan) The kids in foster homes didn’t really do anything to get there and they deserve a break. And if someone is gracious enough to take on the challenge with a kind and caring heart to raise another human being to be a like minded contributor to society, they should get tax breaks and kudos accordingly.

  20. All;

    I would like to make a suggestion that each of us start a Reply to a comment with the persons’s handle so that it is easier to follow responses. I am not sure sometimes who is responding to whom.

    CM

  21. My opinion, which doesn’t mean a thing in the scheme of things, is that it does NOT take a village(or government) to raise a child, it takes PARENTS!

    I was raised mostly by a single Mother, along with my siblings, and we were taught tolerance – but only to a point. There are things in this life and this world that a person just cannot tolerate . . . and those things are PERSONAL CHOICES for that individual and those personal choices are the sole responsibility of that individual. No government can ever make a law that covers what a person may or may not think, what a person may or may not like, who a person may or may not become emotionally involved with. So do not tell me that I MUST accept someones filthy lifestyle when it is that persons personal choice to live that lifestyle, and DO NOT even attempt to teach that filthy lifestyle to a five year old(to me, that is akin to child molestation)!

  22. I can’t see any reason for discussion of these topics in elementary school.

    I found out recently that my best friend when I was in first grade is a lesbian. When we were kids no one needed to tell me to accept her because there was no difference (to my knowledge) between us. We just played together and never seemed to need to discuss our sexuality.

    As far as different kinds of families go, I think most little kids are very accepting. They don’t think much about those kinds of things. Lots of kids these days are raised by non-traditional families (mostly single mothers), and they are used to differences. Another good childhood friend of mine was raised by her father, and I never thought anything of it. It was just how it was. I wonder if little Suzie isn’t worse off when it is pointed out that she is different because she has two dads.

    I wonder if they discuss why little Rachel has one dad and three moms when they are talking about different families. We wouldn’t want her to feel like a freak now would we?

  23. All

    Hey where is that learned and literary genius BF? I have not read a post on this from him and I can’t believe he has nothing to say

    BF??????

  24. What does education mean today? Reading, writing, basketball and sex? Is cheer-leading not some form of promoting TV/magazine’s viewpoint of sexy/desirable/attractive? We know they have taken more and more subject matter out of classrooms and put in useless studies. Yes, lets have a gay history class. That would be more relevant than Greek or other ancient studies.

    As has been said here before, the government is dumbing down America. It is deliberate and systematic. They are attacking the values of our culture, to the point the government decides not just what is legal, but moral as well. Do I need a government approved inspector to evaluate if I am raising my children according to their guidelines? Thank you, but no. Nor do I need them to teach my children about sex, in any way, shape or form. I have gay friends that my children associate with. It is my right as their parent to raise them as I see fit. I am a product of my forefathers insights, teachings and prejudice. This has worked for America for quite a while, at least, until the government took control.

    Or as Michelle quoted a few days ago,

    “A new public mind is to be created. How? Only by creating tens of millions of new individual minds and welding them into a new social mind. Old stereotypes must be broken up and new “climates of opinion” formed in the neighborhoods of America[i]”.

    In another passage Rugg continued this thought, “ . . .through the schools of the world we shall disseminate a new conception of government—one that will embrace all of the collective activities of men; one that will postulate the need for scientific control and operation of economic activities in the interest of all people

    • Actually gay history and greek history would fit well together

      Yes, it’s absolutely about controling the morals and values and minds of others. It’s not about playing nice on the playground, you don’t need to even speak of sexuality for that.

    • Michelle,

      “Actually gay history and greek history would fit well together”

      Glad you mentioned that. I thought the exact same thing when I saw LOI’s post.

  25. Judy S. says:

    Ok, here’s the deal on what and how I think about the gay and lesbian situation. If gay people want to be together, get married, live together, of have a civil union, does NOT bother me in any way. I think they have every right to happiness as much as anyone else. Who are we to judge what kind of life style people choose to live anyway? Why should they be deprived of being happy just because they choose to live a certain way.?Would you like to be judged on the way you live your life? I just don’t think that is something that should be taught in schools. ( Elementary that is ). I think that should be something that’s taught in the home, by Whether it be 2 men or 2 women, or straight. And, I don’t believe that being gay is a chosen way, I think it’s something you are born with. Maybe some people have chosen that way of life, but not all. How many times have you heard or maybe read about gay people who have tried to be straight, get married, have kids, but are still not happy with who they are trying to be? Has anybody here ever heard of Christine Jorgenson? Anyway, she was born a male, but had all the female tendencies, and ended up getting a sex change operation. If I’m not mistaken, I think that took place in the 50’s, not really sure, but I do remember the story. I guess what I’m trying to say is, whatever life style you choose to live or how, then that’s your business. Sometime I think that gay couples can be better parents than straight people too. I don’t think it should be a governmental controlled method of teaching. In fact, I think the government should stay out of the teaching, medical, car manufacture, insurance, post offices, private businesses, and our lives, and what ever else I might have forgotten.

  26. Wow. This is a very tough issue. I actually had to stop reading and then come back to this later. First of all I would like to mention that as a high school student, “The Color Purple’ and ‘The clan of the cave bear’ were on my reading list. Both of which dealt with rape and one dealt with child rape. As a senior in high school I was on a mental level to deal with this issue and discuss what it means on a social level. Some of my classmates were not. I don’t have a lot of time so I will have to sum up my belief. Schools should be open about what they teach so that parents are aware. If a parent does not want something taught they should have the right to choose a school that does not teach in that manner or excuse their children from school during those classes. BUT it should not be banned either. Legislation should stay out of this and leave it to the parents to take up with the school district in either direction… beware that it can be abused the other way. I have been led to believe that sex education in school became a curriculum item when some parents did not teach little girls what to expect when their bodies changed and they got very scared with their first period. Is there any truth to this or was is disease control that prompted the first sex ed class?

  27. The only thing I have to say is that my child will not be taught this in School. At any grade level. If it is tried I will pull him out of school and home school him.

    And no; before you say it. It has nothing to do with intolerance of Gays and Lesbians. It has evernything to do with the fact that my child will NOT be taught that it is OK to be Gay. Tolerance yes. I already teach my children tolerance for all races, religions, and lifestyles. But it is my responsibility to teach my children morals and what they believe or not. It is not the State’s job. It will not BE the State’s job.

  28. TexasChem says:

    I find it quite offensive that the education system would promote LGBT lifestyle in the school system, whether from an acceptable or tolerant point of view.Kids are very open to suggestion in their formative years.I’d just like to point out “fads” such as clothing styles, hair styles, lingo as proof of that statement.The increase in this LGBT lifestyle cannot be disputed by the sheer number that grows yearly.My parents and grandparents have said that when they were younger there were nowhere near the amount of LGBT people in their time.

    This lifestyle is against the natural order of the perpetuation of a species.Ok here we go again with my statement of “There can be no more grey area with this subject.”Black or white.Right or wrong.Good or bad.Take a stance and stop worrying that others take offense at your beliefs.I sure do take offense to theirs.This “fad” is affecting the youth of our country big time.I can be tolerant up to a point but I will not accept this affecting my children.

    Take a gander at this!Notice the recruiter T-shirt being worn.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100806

    • Chris Devine says:

      Did it occur to you that the social stigma prevalent in your parents’ and grandparents’ day may be more explanatory? Remember when “black people knew their place” and “a woman’s place was in the home?”

      Regarding the t-shirt, ever heard of satire? I doubt she has a pocket full of applications for prospective members.

      • TexasChem says:

        Oh, cmon Chris.Why do the majority of liberally minded people always have to bring up the race card?I believe America has come a looong way in trumping that issue.We just elected an African American as president so stop feeling guilty about your forefathers past transgressions.Ok?

        It\’s a shame that in order to make it in middle-class America financially these days that both mom and dad have to work to pay all the bills and taxes.I mean cmon\’ man who needs a mom and dad to be a parent and actually spend time teaching their child constructive ethics?We have Barney and super urban daycare nannies.Ehh?

        My wife did stay at home with the kids until they started school and says she wouldn\’t have wanted to miss those preformative years in their early childhood for anything!As a matter of fact she is fortunate enough to now be able to take a job where she can set her hours to coincide with the schools so she can start being there for them when they get out.We in my neck of the woods call that a blessing.

        I do not find anything amusing about an adult wearing a T-shirt emphasizing the fact that they are looking to train a kid in an LGBT lifestyle to a childrens function.You think that\’s funny?I don\’t care if people want to live their alternative lifestyles in the privacy of their own home but do not promote it to kids and have the courtesy and intelligence not to do it around my family so I do not have to explain to my kids the reason two men are kissing when it goes against everything I morally believe in.That basically goes against my teachings of mom and dad and a great big happy family now doesn\’t it?

        So now I ask you do you think the current move in America, this social stigma that is socialism with the \”Identity\” crisis of our citizens is beneficial to our American way of life?Do you not see the world as being more dangerous and corrupt now than it\’s ever been?Especially since the time of my parents\’ and grandparents\’ day?

        • Chris Devine says:

          Racism and sexism are totally relevant to this issue and the fact that we\’ve come a long way shows how are progeny may view our transgressions many years from now.

          The funny part isn\’t that adults are trying to recruit new gay people (they aren\’t). The funny part is that you think the t-shirt is serious.

          I don\’t see this world as being any more dangerous (or less so). I don\’t believe in some mythical \’good ole days\’ when life was simpler and people were nicer. Nostalgia isn\’t very helpful.

    • It’s not that there weren’t as many LBGTs out there, it’s that there weren’t as many out LBGTs out there. As homophobic as today’s society is, back in your grandparents’ days, it was much, much worse, so not as many non-heterosexuals would feel comfortable or safe.
      It’s also not an issue of whether or not we’re “recruiting”. The LBGT community does not try to “recruit” or “turn” heterosexuals, but some heterosexuals do try to “turn” LBGTs. Ever heard of the ex-gay movement? Exodus International? Love Won Out? Conversion therapy? I’m tired of hearing that the gays are trying to turn other people gay when there are some heterosexuals trying to turn people heterosexual.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        We have banged this one around quite a bit over the past six months and there is no consensus nor I suspect can there be.

        There are good and bad people out there, gay and straight. Straight males and females have been known to take advantage of the opposite sex by using confusion and uncertainty. Certainly child predators do. Are you actually telling us that gays don’t? I, a pretty straight guy, have been hit on without asking for it. I take no particular offense unless it is kept up.

        There are a lot of very mixed up people out there who ask themselves time and time again why they are not accepted or loved. Could being seduced count as being recruited? I think that it does. I have no doubt of this. Does that mean that all gays are recruited, of course not but, as with any other human behavior, it can happen and it does happen.

        Who in their friggen right mind would ever join a cult like that of the Rev, Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple? However, thousands did. You cannot deny the power of persuasion, group think or whatever.

        I don’t care if it’s the peoples Temple, The Nazi party, the Democratic Party, the Black Panthers or whatever, you most certainly can be seduced to join any group. All that it requires is that you perceive that you have a need (acceptance) in your life and the group fulfills it.

        Regarding sex reassignment surgery for example, I do not remember when I read it but it was Dr. Harry Benjamin I believe who said that many who sought the surgery thought it was a cure all for something very wrong with their lives. He insisted that they live the role before surgery, some couildn’t wait and looked elsewhere. The outcomes were not always plesant. Before someone declares themselves gay they should think long and hard about it. You do someone no favor by “welcoming” them into your group regardless of what it is without making sure that they thoroughly examine their motives as well as your own.

        The old Psych major has spoken. Look up John Watson and Behaviorism. Regarding “turning” people, think it can’t be done? Then take a close look at religions requiring chastity on the part of their clergy. Sex, the most powerful of all human emotions, is rejected in favor of a spiritual goal. In those cases, the religions have “turned” them.

        • I do believe that people of any orientation may take advantage of others’ confusion and uncertainties. What I meant to say is that the LBGT community as a whole is not trying to recruit, that there’s no great conspiracy involved. I agree with you that there are bad people in the world, some of them straight, some of them gay. I apologize for my improper phrasing. At the time of my comment, I was feeling particularly exasperated and I let may have let my emotions interfere with my clarity. Thank you for a well thought out and unoffensive reply.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            You have great courage in having replied. I have found, over the years, that few will take the time, on an issue that affects them deeply, to think about the possible ramifications of what they say.

            I’m sure you have seen the all or nothing approach many times and from all sides. While there are absolutes in life and in human behavior, they are few and far between.

            Be advised that I am in total agreement with your reply and certainly can understand your exasperation.

            My Dad, the philosopher-bartender taught me back in the 1950-60’s to accept all people as good unless they prove otherwise. I have tried to stay true to his message. Sometimes it ain’t easy.

            Stay with US Weapon’s blog, the topics are interesting, exasperating, informative and a lot of fun. There is more damn honesty here than I have seen in the past 30 years. Folks may disagree but they fight it out rather than run away.

            Best

  29. I’d like to skip the controversial issues of sexual orientation, and just concentrate on the issues of sex and gender. Issues that are a small but highly visible part of “transgender”.

    I’ve had to give remedial talks to medical students and psychology students on the subject of Intersex, simply because it’s not been taught at their schools.

    Many of the medical students come from “privileged” backgrounds, are highly conservative, and often have a very real sense of their Christian Duty to help their fellow human beings. Good people – but horribly ignorant in the areas of biological diversity, due to a religious mis-education on basic biological facts.

    First, Intersex – what is it? It’s the condition of being born with a body neither wholly male nor wholly female. And 1 in 60 people are Intersexed, that’s over 5 million Americans – many of whom never know they’re Intersexed, the symptoms aren’t obvious.

    For at least 1 in 1000 though, they’re not just obvious, but sometimes quite spectacular. And this means that in a large school, odds approach certainty that one or more of the children has such a condition.

    This can cause difficulties, when many religious groups insist that there are men, and women, and that’s all, end of story, and anyone who says different is some kind of deviant or sexual pervert. That’s a pretty hard label to bear for a 7 year old, whose condition may also involve life-threatening dangers (eating too much salt can swiftly kill girls with some forms of CAH syndrome – an additional burden for any girl to bear, apart from being more “well-endowed” than many boys her age).

    We need to teach about this. We need to show that just because someone is left-handed, or red-haired, or colour-blind, or blue-eyed, or albino, or Intersexed, that they are people with minor mutations or anomalies caused by environment in the womb, not “freaks”, and certainly not morally corrupt. That all animals have some degree of natural variation, including “that paragon of animals” (to quote Shakespeare), Man.

    It’s easier to teach this in rural schools, where exposure to Intersexed livestock such as Freemartin cattle is common. Less so in cities. Very difficult in some areas with intense religious belief who see conditions such as polydactylly (having an extra finger), Left-Handedness of Hare Lip as “marks of the Devil”.

    One area that’s particularly fraught is the area of Transsexuality. It looks like the American Psychiatric Association is finally getting off the fence, and no longer claiming that “there’s not enough evidence of biological causation” here. There’s a mountain of data from Autopsies, MRI scans, and even tests of hearing and smell that this condition is a form of Intersex. The Neurology, the Brain, is cross-gendered compared with most or all of the rest of the body. This will be published in the next APA journal and syllabus revision, after the presentation “The Neurobiological Evidence for Transgenderism” given at the APA’s recent annual conference.

    This cross-gendered neurology is most obvious in the cases of 5ARD or 17BHDD syndromes, both of which cause a natural sex-change at puberty from female to male.

    Symptoms of transsexuality are often obvious as early as age 3, and nearly always by age 7. By 10, it’s a condition that can’t be ignored. However, mainly due to ignorance in both children and teachers, such children have a disturbingly high rate of suicide before age 10, from the mistreatment they receive at school. By age 20, half will have attempted suicide.

    So even if it goes against religious pursuasions, we need to educate children that although 59 in 60 are unambiguously Men or Women, for some there’s some question. And for a few, perhaps 100,000 Americans, their actual gender is different from their apparent gender. Not as a matter of “lifestyle choice” (though for most Transgendered people it may be), but a matter of strict, verifiable and objective biology.

    • Alan F. says:

      I’m confused as the first Medscape article on the topic has it as “CAH is the most frequent cause of ambiguous genitalia in the newborn, constituting approximately 60% of all intersex cases.” yet “Analysis of worldwide infant screening of 6.5 million newborns found the incidence of CAH to be 1 case per 15,000 live births. Frequency was highest in neonates of European Jewish, Hispanic, Slavic, or Italian descent.” which comes no where near the 1:60 which I would assume noteworthy held against the much rarer occurrence worldwide.

      The source: Ambiguous Genitalia and Intersexuality

      Author: Joel Hutcheson, MD, Consulting Staff, Departments of Surgery and Urology, Pediatric Surgical Associates
      Coauthor(s): Howard M Snyder III, MD, Professor, Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Urology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
      Contributor Information and Disclosures

      Updated: May 26, 2006

      • The definition of “Intersex” varies. The most inclusive definition includes those with 47xxy rather than 46xy or 46xx chromosomes as Intersexed. Basically, anyone not 100% conforming to either male or female stereotypes in their soma.

        The extremely restrictive definition used by Hutcheson etc al requires both testicular and ovarian tissue to be present. Overt genital ambiguity is required.

        On the subject of CAH, 10% of those with 46xx chromosomes and CAH self-identify as male. 90% identify as female. There is no correlation between degree of genital masculinisation and gender identity.

Trackbacks

  1. […] I just got finished reading “Differences in Sex Education Philosophy Part I” (https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/differences-in-sex-education-philosophy-part-i/#co…). I’m completely horrified by how homophobic some of the comments were. From people who […]

%d bloggers like this: