Tomorrow We Get to See It
The Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development evaluated curricula on sexual variation for eighth and tenth grades, and condom usage for tenth grade. The school district proposed content, and the committee (I am a member) evaluated and made recommendations.
The district is not bound to incorporate any or all of the committee's recommendations, but they were made in good faith, and in some cases they really were necessary. The weird thing is, the committee doesn't know what recommendations were accepted and what ones have been ignored or overruled.
It works like this: the writing committee proposes a curriculum; the citizens advisory committee reviews it and makes suggestions; these are passed to the Superintendent's office, and his staff makes revisions as they see appropriate; the result of that process is proposed to the school board, who vote on it.
A recent memo from the Superintendent thanked the committee and added, "I am particularly impressed by the conduct and leadership of the committee in considering all points of view in reaching its majority conclusions in the form of recommendations by the committee." And it's true, this is what we did. There were very many suggestions, the committee listened to them all, discussed them, and voted on them. It was brutal at timies, we stayed late, we held extra meetings, but we did it, we took everything seriously.
Tomorrow the committee will meet at 7 PM for a presentation of the new curricula. The meeting is described as a briefing on the Superintendent's recommendations to the Board, including a summary of changes that were made in response to the committee's suggestions.
I know that some committee members have been a little uneasy with the fact that we don't know what the result will be -- basically, we have signed off on something without seeing it. I am optimistic, personally, but the thing is, the schools have a way of being hesitant about controversy. You know how it is. On the other hand, the new curricula meet state requirements, reflect the values of the community, and they're way overdue. If there's any controversy, it's up to the school district to fight for high standards. Not that they look forward to that, but I think that's why Board of Education positions are elected by the public, so they'll feel obligated to display some backbone.
The new material will be presented to the school board on January 9th, for them to vote on. I'll be kind of curious to see if any of them vote against it.
The district is not bound to incorporate any or all of the committee's recommendations, but they were made in good faith, and in some cases they really were necessary. The weird thing is, the committee doesn't know what recommendations were accepted and what ones have been ignored or overruled.
It works like this: the writing committee proposes a curriculum; the citizens advisory committee reviews it and makes suggestions; these are passed to the Superintendent's office, and his staff makes revisions as they see appropriate; the result of that process is proposed to the school board, who vote on it.
A recent memo from the Superintendent thanked the committee and added, "I am particularly impressed by the conduct and leadership of the committee in considering all points of view in reaching its majority conclusions in the form of recommendations by the committee." And it's true, this is what we did. There were very many suggestions, the committee listened to them all, discussed them, and voted on them. It was brutal at timies, we stayed late, we held extra meetings, but we did it, we took everything seriously.
Tomorrow the committee will meet at 7 PM for a presentation of the new curricula. The meeting is described as a briefing on the Superintendent's recommendations to the Board, including a summary of changes that were made in response to the committee's suggestions.
I know that some committee members have been a little uneasy with the fact that we don't know what the result will be -- basically, we have signed off on something without seeing it. I am optimistic, personally, but the thing is, the schools have a way of being hesitant about controversy. You know how it is. On the other hand, the new curricula meet state requirements, reflect the values of the community, and they're way overdue. If there's any controversy, it's up to the school district to fight for high standards. Not that they look forward to that, but I think that's why Board of Education positions are elected by the public, so they'll feel obligated to display some backbone.
The new material will be presented to the school board on January 9th, for them to vote on. I'll be kind of curious to see if any of them vote against it.
posted by JimK at 1:45 PM
43 Comments:
In the thread
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2006/12/sometimes-you-gotta-laugh.html#comments
Theresa said "I am against gay marriage because if we take the example of the Netherlands, or any other country that has legalized gay marriage, you see a corresponding decrease in the numbers of marriages overall."
That's a lie.
http://lists.powerblogs.com/pipermail/volokh/2006-November/007622.html
"[T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden.
In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest
they've been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized."
Theresa, if you were truly concerned about gay kids catching STDs you'd support gay marriage, but you aren't and you don't. You're solely interested in stigmatizing gays.
Theresa also said "And just because gays can't get married does not mean they can't exercise a monogamous relationship.".
That's rather biogted of you Theresa. If its important to heteroesuals to have marriage for the sake of monogamous relationships its important to gays for the same reason. If gays don't need marriage neither do heterosexuals.
Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban it.
The amendment's backers had collected 170,000 signatures to get a question on the 2008 ballot asking voters to declare marriage to be between a man and a woman
Heterosexual marriage is more important than homosexual relationships because it is the organizing structure of our society. As we've discussed before, denying a child the right to know their biological parents is cruel and unnecessary. Homosexual "marriage" would serve no purpose other than propaganda for the gay agenda. That's why Americans always reject it. Canadians should wise up too. Its leader knows that.
Even if that were true, gay relationships and marriages in no way affect heterosexual marriages and there is no reason to hurt a minority when so doing doesn't benefit the majority in anyway.
Denying gays the right to marry won't result in one single extra child being raised by both biological parents, it will merely mean the children of gay parents don't hate the benefit of legally protected, united and supported parents. Banning gay marriage hurts the children of gays, it does nothing to help the children of heteroseuxals.
The above post should have read "it will merely mean the children of gay parents don't have the benefit of legally protected, united and supported parents.", not "don't hate"
In a heterosexual marriage where a child is adopted, that child may not know his/her biological parents either. In a homosexual marriage, the child may know one biological parent(or not, if the child is adopted). And the parents in either of these cases, may choose to let the child know a(the) biological parent(s). So Anon, as usual, is illogical.
Adoption is helping a kid who is without parents. Homosexuals create this situation. Entirely different.
Anonymous said:
Adoption is helping a kid who is without parents. Homosexuals create this situation. Entirely different.
Huh?? Homosexuals are responsible for children who are without parents? Seems to me that heterosecuals are the problem here. Snide, bigoted comments like that don't help your "homophobist" agenda, Anonymous
Anonymous, just fess up and say you don't like queer people. It would be much more straightforward.
rrjr
Anonymous said "Adoption is helping a kid who is without parents. Homosexuals create this situation. Entirely different.".
Ignoring the fact that contrary to anonymous's delusions children of gays, do of course have parents, most children of gays are the result of previous heterosexual unions. In the cases I know the heterosexual parent didn't want the child and the gay parent ended stepping up to the plate to do what the heterosexual parent would not - raise the child.
“In the cases I know the heterosexual parent didn't want the child and the gay parent ended stepping up to the plate to do what the heterosexual parent would not - raise the child.”
Well that is different from the norm ware the homosexual abandons the family leaving the wife to take care of the kids and now we are starting to see these woman are often HIV positive because the husband was having sex with multiple partners. The worst part is that the strain out know is ammine to the HIV cocktails and a lot of these kids will be orphans in a few years.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous, what evidence do you have that that is the norm? And those instances where gay men do leave their wives with the kids are all the more reason why gays should never heterosexually marry in the first place. You admit negative results in these marriages yet you foolishly advocate that gay men get involved in them. Its clear you don't care who gets hurt or what kind of nonsense you spout as long as its anti-gay.
A homosexual couple will, by definition, not include both the biological parents of any child. Usually, the identity of the absent person isn't disclosed to the child in cases of artificial insemination.
To enshrine a system where this is commonplace is a tragedy.
"Its clear you don't care who gets hurt or what kind of nonsense you spout as long as its anti-gay."
Its clear you don't believe the welfare of vulnerable children is more important than the hedonistic indulgences of adults.
What's clear is that you prefer to deny the children of same sex parents the same rights and protections as other children. Shame on you.
Anonymous said "Its clear you don't believe the welfare of vulnerable children is more important than the hedonistic indulgences of adults.".
Anonymous, personally I can't stand children. Anyone's choosing to raise them certainly isn't a "hedonistic indulgence". The overwhelming majority of evidence shows that the children of gays do just as well as the children of heterosexuals. If any one doesn't care about children, its you who would deprive those children of gay parents of the legal protections and support of having two married parents.
Anon, it's "immune," not "ammine." Or maybe you were thinking of the organic functional group, "amine"? No, I doubt it.
You have no idea what you're talking about, because such data does not exist.
"Anonymous, personally I can't stand children."
Do you find that a lot of homosexuals feel that way?
Personally I find more straight people who don't care for children than gay ones, but that's neither here nor there.
We've seen the new curriculum, and while not perfect, which no curriculum could be, it's apparently, according to my source, a great advance over the last one. I expect Jim will blog on it once he gets home tonight.
Not quite tonight, there are a couple of things in it ... or, actually, not in it ... that I want to look into.
But yes, I'll have something to say about it, you can be p.r.e.t.t.y sure.
JimK
Anonymous said...
""Anonymous, personally I can't stand children."
Do you find that a lot of homosexuals feel that way?".
I don't know any "homosexuals", all the people I know are either gay, straight, or bisexual.
“””””Randi Schimnosky said...
Anonymous, what evidence do you have that that is the norm? And those instances where gay men do leave their wives with the kids are all the more reason why gays should never heterosexually marry in the first place. You admit negative results in these marriages yet you foolishly advocate that gay men get involved in them. Its clear you don't care who gets hurt or what kind of nonsense you spout as long as it’s anti-gay.””””””
You fool. I do not advocate that woman should married gay men far from it. The only people I care about not getting hurt are the children and if that hurts your gay feelings to bad cry to someone else. All the scientific studies link women contracting HIV from primarily having sex with gay men BI whatever. Only 2% of gay men are exclusively gay so the other 98% are bisexual. That’s just a fact. Look it up.
Wow. Anon lives in a world where a hundred percent of guys are attracted to other guys.
I think Randi was right on this one.
JimK
"Wow. Anon lives in a world where a hundred percent of guys are attracted to other guys."
That last Anon comment seemed pretty incoherent (you shouldn't type so fast, Jim).
Still, I didn't see anything suggesting this. You guys are losing it.
Anonymous said "You fool. I do not advocate that woman should married gay men far from it".
You defended Ted Haggard's marriage at length. When I said he should have never married heterosexually you strongly disagreed, dismissing his being gay as a mere temptation. You went on and on about how you thought he had a good marriage.
Anonymous said "Only 2% of gay men are exclusively gay so the other 98% are bisexual. That’s just a fact. Look it up. "
Not quite Anonymous. In surveys close to 10% of men report being something other than heterosexual - much as Kinsey discovered.
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 57% of men who had sex with another man did not consider themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.20 A recent random survey of 4,193 men in New York City revealed that while 91.3% claimed they were straight, 9.3% of those “straight” respondents had sex only with other men in the previous year, while another 0.8% reported having sex with both men and women.21 When the authors included gays and bisexuals, they noted that among men who have sex with men, 73% identified as straight. Another representative survey found that more than 20% of all men have had a homosexual experience.22".
20. Mosher, William D.; Chandra, Anjani D.; Jones, Jo. “Sexual behavior and selected health measure: Men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002” Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics; No 362 (Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics, September 15, 2005): 30. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf (PDF: 1,248KB/36 pages).
21. Pathela, Preeti; Hajat, Anjum; Scjillinger, Julia; Blank, Susan; Sell, Randall; Mostashari, Farzad. “Discordance between sexual behavior and self-reported sexual identity: A population-based survey of New York City men.” Annals of Internal Medicine 145, no. 6 (September 19, 2006): 416-425. Full text available online at http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/145/6/416.
22. Seidman, Stuart H.; Reider, Ronald O. “A review of sexual behavior in the United States” American Journal of Psychiatry 151, No. 3 (Mar 1994): 330-339. Abstract available online at http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/151/3/330.
"You defended Ted Haggard's marriage at length. When I said he should have never married heterosexually you strongly disagreed, dismissing his being gay as a mere temptation. You went on and on about how you thought he had a good marriage."
Different anonymous, Randi. Do yourself a favor and only say something when you know it is true. You'll save yourself a lot of embarassment.
Sorry, I just looked at that again, and it turns out it was me who said that. I've been trying to deal with some of these feelings lately, since Randi has pointed out that I may not be "objective" about this topic of homosexuality. Please give me a little time.
Anonymous, you have no one to blame for me mistaking you for another anonymous but yourself. If you wish to distinguish yourself from the others then do so, otherwise just accept the fact that you're going to be considered one and the same.
randi shumockski you are a fool only 2.5% of the male population ever ingages in homosexuality of that 2.5% only 2% are exsclusive. like you. hear is another one for you half the gay men in the DC area are HIV positive. not good odds for you, better get tested.
Anonymous at January 05, 2007 5:05 PM
I've been there myself anonymous. If you want to talk privately to somone who can be sympathetic you can email me at randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net
Anonymous at January 05, 2007 5:05 PM said "Sorry, I just looked at that again, and it turns out it was me who said that. I've been trying to deal with some of these feelings lately, since Randi has pointed out that I may not be "objective" about this topic of homosexuality. Please give me a little time."
Anonymous at January 05, 2007 5:09 PM
Hey anonymous, don't argue with me about the numbers, I didn't create them, go bitch to the CDC, Seidman, Stuart H., Reider, Ronald O, and/or the Kinsey Institute if you don't like the fact that up to 20% or more of men have had gay sex.
And Anonymous, I have a monogamous relationship with the sweetest, most wonderful man in the world. I'm not worried in the slightest about HIV or any other STD.
Randi Schimnosky said...
And Anonymous, I have a monogamous relationship with the sweetest, most wonderful man in the world...
I get it you are the girl in the relationship or the reciver but how do you know he is not getting a little on the side? unless you both are so ugly nobody else would want you. get tested.
Anonymous at January 06, 2007 9:44 AM
And you were talking about civil decorum and not hurling epithets on another thread. You're just upset that some of us are having a happy life being who we are while you attempt to stifle your sexuality with anti-gay hatred, as you've more or less admitted here. My boyfriend has earned my trust with years of consistent truthful and loving behavior. It must be horrible to be you, wanting love, but denying it to yourself because you can't deal with your internalized homophobia.
Anon asked ""how do you know he is not getting a little on the side"
The same way Anon knows Anon's partner isn't getting any on the side. Assuming Anon has one, I'd say it's Anon's partner who's more likely to be "getting a little on the side" than Randi's. Look at the track record of religious nuts who think, like Anon, that gays belong in the closet:
Jim Bakker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bakker)
John Wesley Fletcher (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/lkl.01.html)
Marvin Gorman (http://www.raptureready.com/rr-hypocrite.html)
Jimmy Swaggart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Swaggart)
Michael Johnston (http://www.sovo.com/2003/8-1/news/breaking/exgay.cfm)
John Paulk (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Paulk-Southern%20Voice.html)
Ted Haggard (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5112770,00.html).
Randi's partner is living an honest and open life, not cowering is some closet wishing for something else. It's dishonest people who try to deny who they are by living in the closet who tend toward sex scandals.
PTA
And PTA, let's not forget Lonnie Latham, another classic example just like anonymous of a self loathing gay being a gay basher.
Right Randi, thanks. And these are just some of the more infamous examples. When you think about the 250,000 ex-gay therapy clients who were screened for inclusion in the Spitzer study, you have to wonder about the 249,800 who were not included. How many broken families have resulted from those gays who were forced into closets of heterosexual marriage before learning to accept themselves as God made them?
PTA
Randi Schimnosky said...
Anonymous at January 05, 2007 5:05 PM said "Sorry, I just looked at that again, and it turns out it was me who said that. I've been trying to deal with some of these feelings lately, since Randi has pointed out that I may not be "objective" about this topic of homosexuality. Please give me a little time."
Sorry to disappoint you Randi I am not that Anon, that is JimK you two can shrimp each other.
‘Randi “Hey anonymous, don't argue with me about the numbers, I didn't create them, go bitch to the CDC, Seidman, Stuart H., Reider, Ronald O, and/or the Kinsey Institute if you don't like the fact that up to 20% or more of men have had gay sex.”
The Kinsey institute and Kinsey himself worked with child molesters I guess if you are counting the victims of homosexual child sexual abuse than 20% could be a good estimate but than you would be saying that the victims wanted it. You are really sick and twisted Randi.
Randi Schimnosky said...
Anonymous at January 05, 2007 5:05 PM
I've been there myself anonymous. If you want to talk privately to someone who can be sympathetic you can email me at randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net
Randi I thought you said you were in a monogamous relationship with and rear? Now you are trying to pick up on an anon for some “private talk” is this what passes for monogamous in the homosexual community you should be ashamed of your self and you should really get tested unless your one of those homosexuals who gets off by infecting other people. In that case you should be locked up for murder one and get the death sentence. Freak.
Nice design of blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home