Unanimous ... Again
Wow, it's been a long day already. The school board meeting was at 10 this morning. The place was packed. There were TV antennas out front, guys walking all over the place with cameras, reporters with their makeup all straight, wires strung everywhere. In the boardroom, every seat was taken. People were standing along the sides and back of the room.
Yes: a zoo.
I'm sure I'll be posting something soon about the public comments. There are fifteen slots, and there were fifteen speakers. They were not all about the sex-ed business, but a lot were.
I don't know if my favorite part was the CRC's Ruth Jacobs waving her flag and holding up her football ("don't kick our kids around"), or if it was the guy from the Conservative Democratic Alliance who said ... hey, wait a minute. The Conservative Democratic Alliance is a rightwing British group, they don't operate in this country, do they? Oh, man, look at this, he's been saying this same exact stuff for a million years ... Anyway, it was a great moment in Montgomery COunty history when he said "You can remove the homosexual activists from your CACFLHD [the citizens advisory committee] or approve this new curriculum (as is) and lose another court case."
I love being called a "homosexual activist." It's just so perfect.
For the record, there was one openly gay guy on the committee. I don't think he is an "activist," I don't know, he seems like a pretty normal guy to me.
A sentence of new wording was appended to the curriculum by MCPS staff, stating that "Sexual orientation is innate and a complex part of one's personality." Not much discussion of this, really.
The last week has seen a lot of intense communication between the board members and interested parties. We've been seeing lots of emails and hearing about bunches of phone calls, informal discussions at PTA meetings, mmm, conference calls with the doctors, who said what about who, as everybody got their ducks in a row and figured out what to say in the public meeting. So, today's statements by board members were not too much of a surprise. We heard the arguments we had expected. (I think you can watch the meeting online HERE, once they get it posted.)
As you know, we had hoped to get in the "bullet points" from the AMA, APA, and AAP. Two motions were made by board members, one to introduce a cut-down version, and one to adopt the whole thing. After some interesting debate, neither motion passed. It seemed to me that members agreed with the statements, and supported including them, but just didn't want to make that big of a change at this time. The issue will be revisited after pilot testing, and I have the feeling it has more of a chance after the legal threat has dissipated and they've gotten some feedback from students.
I've got to mention. The student member, Sarah Horvitz, made the motion to include the full text. And man, that girl was good. She explained the whole thing, what it is and why it should be there, what it's like to be a student dealing with a counselor you don't know, and I figured she'd sold it to them. Sadly, no. But watch this young lady, she was really impressive today.
Board member Steve Abrams tried to introduce a motion ... something about changing the sexual orientation of animals ... but nobody would second it. Sometimes the other members just roll their eyes. (He did get in a pretty funny pun, though, about eighth-graders thinking the word "innate" meant "in eighth grade.")
Oh, yes. At one point, board member Pat O'Neill said something about being sure there'd be another lawsuit. Her words: "See ya in court." And Sharon Cox, as well, when she referred to the almost certain impending action by the suers, said "Bring 'em on." Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do, and I thank you ladies for showing the way so fearlessly.
Finally, a half hour after lunch was supposed to have started, the school board voted on the new curriculum. All hands went up: unanimous. Now the curriculum will go to piloting in a number of middle and high schools.
Afterwards it was very interesting, in a pathetic kind of way. We're not usually around that many television crews, so I forget they're like this. They flocked around the CRC members to find out what they thought.
Wow, I was just looking for something about what the CRC thinks of the new curriculum, and Google showed me the CRC already has their big press release out today. What do they think? Hmm ... "wins a failing grade ... more about sexual politics ... increased emphasis on moral approval of alternative lifestyles ... the decreased or even absent treatment of abstinence as a choice ... sex not placed within context of marriage." All righty then. Not happy, it seems.
When the school district had a really good curriculum in 2004, these Brilliant People did all they could to get it thrown out, and finally succeeded. They knew the district was going to start over again -- did they really think the next curriculum would be more conservative? Did they expect to convert people by suing?
Gee, I'm sorry about that. He said, giggling into his sleeve.
Woops, almost forgot ... in the "overflow room," board members and supporters of the curriculum stood around quietly while the cameras pointed at the CRC's signs, and taped their adamant statements. When you watch this on the television news, you're going to get a very strange version of what happened today. You're going to hear the tiny minority of anti-gay losers explain it, the ones who don't understand what this curriculum is about or why this vote was significant.
Why TV works that way, I couldn't tell you.
Let me tell you what happened. The Montgomery County Board of Education voted unanimously to adopt new sex-ed curricula for eighth and tenth grades. Students will learn about variations in sexual orientation and gender identity, and how to correctly use a condom. The classes will be objective, thorough, fair, and scientifically sound.
This is a giant step for MCPS; I applaud them for their courage, and don't worry, we will continue to pressure them to make the classes better.
Yes: a zoo.
I'm sure I'll be posting something soon about the public comments. There are fifteen slots, and there were fifteen speakers. They were not all about the sex-ed business, but a lot were.
I don't know if my favorite part was the CRC's Ruth Jacobs waving her flag and holding up her football ("don't kick our kids around"), or if it was the guy from the Conservative Democratic Alliance who said ... hey, wait a minute. The Conservative Democratic Alliance is a rightwing British group, they don't operate in this country, do they? Oh, man, look at this, he's been saying this same exact stuff for a million years ... Anyway, it was a great moment in Montgomery COunty history when he said "You can remove the homosexual activists from your CACFLHD [the citizens advisory committee] or approve this new curriculum (as is) and lose another court case."
I love being called a "homosexual activist." It's just so perfect.
For the record, there was one openly gay guy on the committee. I don't think he is an "activist," I don't know, he seems like a pretty normal guy to me.
A sentence of new wording was appended to the curriculum by MCPS staff, stating that "Sexual orientation is innate and a complex part of one's personality." Not much discussion of this, really.
The last week has seen a lot of intense communication between the board members and interested parties. We've been seeing lots of emails and hearing about bunches of phone calls, informal discussions at PTA meetings, mmm, conference calls with the doctors, who said what about who, as everybody got their ducks in a row and figured out what to say in the public meeting. So, today's statements by board members were not too much of a surprise. We heard the arguments we had expected. (I think you can watch the meeting online HERE, once they get it posted.)
As you know, we had hoped to get in the "bullet points" from the AMA, APA, and AAP. Two motions were made by board members, one to introduce a cut-down version, and one to adopt the whole thing. After some interesting debate, neither motion passed. It seemed to me that members agreed with the statements, and supported including them, but just didn't want to make that big of a change at this time. The issue will be revisited after pilot testing, and I have the feeling it has more of a chance after the legal threat has dissipated and they've gotten some feedback from students.
I've got to mention. The student member, Sarah Horvitz, made the motion to include the full text. And man, that girl was good. She explained the whole thing, what it is and why it should be there, what it's like to be a student dealing with a counselor you don't know, and I figured she'd sold it to them. Sadly, no. But watch this young lady, she was really impressive today.
Board member Steve Abrams tried to introduce a motion ... something about changing the sexual orientation of animals ... but nobody would second it. Sometimes the other members just roll their eyes. (He did get in a pretty funny pun, though, about eighth-graders thinking the word "innate" meant "in eighth grade.")
Oh, yes. At one point, board member Pat O'Neill said something about being sure there'd be another lawsuit. Her words: "See ya in court." And Sharon Cox, as well, when she referred to the almost certain impending action by the suers, said "Bring 'em on." Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do, and I thank you ladies for showing the way so fearlessly.
Finally, a half hour after lunch was supposed to have started, the school board voted on the new curriculum. All hands went up: unanimous. Now the curriculum will go to piloting in a number of middle and high schools.
Afterwards it was very interesting, in a pathetic kind of way. We're not usually around that many television crews, so I forget they're like this. They flocked around the CRC members to find out what they thought.
Wow, I was just looking for something about what the CRC thinks of the new curriculum, and Google showed me the CRC already has their big press release out today. What do they think? Hmm ... "wins a failing grade ... more about sexual politics ... increased emphasis on moral approval of alternative lifestyles ... the decreased or even absent treatment of abstinence as a choice ... sex not placed within context of marriage." All righty then. Not happy, it seems.
When the school district had a really good curriculum in 2004, these Brilliant People did all they could to get it thrown out, and finally succeeded. They knew the district was going to start over again -- did they really think the next curriculum would be more conservative? Did they expect to convert people by suing?
Gee, I'm sorry about that. He said, giggling into his sleeve.
Woops, almost forgot ... in the "overflow room," board members and supporters of the curriculum stood around quietly while the cameras pointed at the CRC's signs, and taped their adamant statements. When you watch this on the television news, you're going to get a very strange version of what happened today. You're going to hear the tiny minority of anti-gay losers explain it, the ones who don't understand what this curriculum is about or why this vote was significant.
Why TV works that way, I couldn't tell you.
Let me tell you what happened. The Montgomery County Board of Education voted unanimously to adopt new sex-ed curricula for eighth and tenth grades. Students will learn about variations in sexual orientation and gender identity, and how to correctly use a condom. The classes will be objective, thorough, fair, and scientifically sound.
This is a giant step for MCPS; I applaud them for their courage, and don't worry, we will continue to pressure them to make the classes better.
posted by JimK at 5:49 PM
42 Comments:
waah waah sue waah waah sue
waah waah sue waah waah sue
How CRC and their ilk sounded and looked today on TV while
prostituting themselves to media wailing how unfair it has all been.
Actually quite entertaining to see them being the babies they are. Sad to see the bigots they really are.
Ted
David Fishback needs to see the channel 4 news at 5... the reporter was explaining the opposition, and showed clips of public testimony from the bad-guys... first ruth and then.. david fishback?!?... the reporter used a piece of David's testimony that made him look like he was on the CRC's side... I think the reporter got his people mixed up
Maybe it wasn't a mistake Ben. Afterall, Steve Abrahms wanted all to know that David is a bully afterall. (Shame on you David for reminding board members of their campaign promises) Was it just me or did Abrahms just look bored all laid back in his chair with his diet pepsi?. I would have thought so until he actually dared to talk about gene therapy to change homosexual hehavior in animals.
Can we please get a new token republican on the BOE. There has to be someone else out there who will at least try to act engaged during meetings.
I have a younger sister that is currently in 8th grade and I hope they pick her school for field testing this spring. She also told me that last year (her 7th grade year) her classmate asked their teacher whether homosexuality was a disease or illness and the teacher just said, "That's for next year."
Then I told my sister that with the new curriculum, the teacher still won't answer that question and will instead tell them to "seek a trusted and responsible adult." She responded, "That IS a trusted adult!"
There are kids out there who trust their teachers. It worries me that teachers won't be allowed to answer such questions and leave students to draw their own conclusions or ask their friends, who they would rather talk to about things than an adult. I do hope that after the questions will undoubtedly be asked during the field testing the board will revisit those "bullet points."
Congrats to the Teach the Facts for their work on getting the new curriculum passed. Is there a local newspaper that might accept op-eds or letters to the editor on the issue Abrahms alluded to re: gene therapy and sexual orientation. I am a second year medical student and would like to note there is also potential for gene therapy to change skin color, height, intellect, and just about anything else out there. jennmonti@yahoo.com if there is an opportunity. Thanks! Jenn
I just want to add that I believe the event, which could have turned into a circus, was very well managed. Now some students will get their chance at this curriculum, and by speaking up will provide the necessary data to help fine-tune it before it goes into full-time production. And, I agree, Sarah Horvitz, the student member, was wonderfully articulate and to the point. I don't think there will be many board members in the future who will publicly request that her voting power should be reduced.
And, also, Anon, it was a pleasure to finally see you, and hear you speak publicly the words you so often entertain us with here. You're actually kinda cute.
You could have turned around and said hello to us. Even Ruth and Theresa know how to be polite.
Jenn,
Contact the Gazette Papers at Gazette.net
1. Ben,
I watched Channel 4 at 11, and I guess they used a shorter clip. I have had not a few insults hurled at me the last several years. The only one that would really bother me would be associating me with CRC.
2. Richelle,
Steve didn't actually SAY I was a bully. Rather he offered me advice based on his own experience being called a bully. He admitted that I did not intend to be threatening anyone, but was afraid that some people might interpret it that way. I guess in his view if people make a campaign promises and a constituent asks them a couple of months after the election to make good on the promises, that could be construed as coercion. Curious understanding of democracy. Of course, my point was that the medical mainstream says homosexuality is not a disease, the Board members who were just elected understand that the mainstream docs say it is not a disease, the Board's Citizens Advisory Committee understands that the mainstream docs say it is not a disease -- so it is really out of step for the MCPS Staff to avoid conveying that vital information to the students. Hopefully, after today's discussion the Staff will look at the matter anew as the field testing begins.
3. Anon with the younger sister's story,
Could you get in touch with Teachthefacts and give your name and contact information? This story should be forwarded to the BOE and the MCPS Staff.
I am cute, as well as entertaining, Dana, but, alas, I wasn't there.
Peace out.
America's foremost radio advocate for children has fired back against allegations he misused research when he wrote an article in a December issue of Time on the topic of children raised in "alternative" homes.
In his January newsletter to constituents, Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James Dobson said the criticism he's taken for the piece is because "the views expressed in this article run counter to everything our liberal, politically correct culture holds dear."
The commentary, written at the request of Time, had as its news peg the just-announced revelation that Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, was pregnant with a child she intends to raise with her partner.
Gary Schneeberger, public policy media director for Focus on the Family, said reaction from the left was especially furious because Dobson cited research from several authors showing that children need their fathers -- and suffer when the father is not present.
One homosexual activist took it upon himself to convince some of the scientists whose research Dobson referenced to complain.
One of those researchers, Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School, wrote Time to complain Dobson had "cherry-picked" -- or used quotes out of context -- when he quoted from Pruett's book, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett went so far as to demand that Dobson stop referring to this work.
Dobson was stunned at the allegation.
"Something is strange here," he wrote in his newsletter. "Doesn’t the title (of Pruett's book) itself proclaim the significance of fathering in the well-being of children? Of course it does. The phrase that Dr. Pruett said I 'cherry-picked' was this: 'fathers do not mother.' Incidentally, that is the title of the first chapter of his book!"
Moreover, Dobson pointed out in his newsletter what Pruett himself said in the final paragraph of Fatherneed: "Men are the single greatest untapped resource in the lives of American children. Natural, renewable, and by and large nontoxic, they couldn’t be healthier for the country’s children. We can’t afford to let another one get away."
"What am I missing here?" Dobson asked. "Isn’t that precisely the point I was making? In what sense did I misquote or take Dr. Pruett’s writings out of context? Is he now changing his position and claiming that fathers are NOT critical to healthy child development? Is he saying that fathers DO NOT create huge consequences for children, or that two lesbians can do the job just as well without them? Apparently so, but that is not what he wrote."
Princeton Professor Robert George, who wrote a letter to the editors of Time in defense of Dobson's perspective that children need both a mother and a father, said while he is not a psychologist, he is familiar with Pruett's work.
"It didn't look to me as though (Dobson) had misused the work in any way," George told CitizenLink. "Rather he had simply cited a work that made a point that supported the case he was making."
Another scientist whose work Dobson cited from -- educational psychologist Carol Gilligan -- angrily accused him of misrepresenting her views and demanded he not mention her work ever again.
That's nonsensical, according to Schneeberger. Scientists don't get to choose who can cite their works and who can't.
"In science, there are two different things -- there's data and there are the conclusions drawn from the data," Schneeberger said. "Dr. Dobson accurately cited the data of every scientist he quoted from in that piece. That's what the data says.
"Now, those scientists may not have been pleased with the conclusions he drew from that data, but that's not their call to make. In the realm of science and social science, you can't issue cease-and-desist orders simply for having your work cited by people you may disagree with."
What homosexual activists and their sympathizers are trying to do, Schneeberger added, is shut up their critics.
"What they are saying is, 'Not only can you not have the beliefs that you have, but you can't use science to back up your beliefs, or we'll accuse you of misusing science.' "
The practical effects of the controversy have been many. CitizenLink readers have sent more than 8,000 e-mails thanking Time for giving Dr. Dobson the platform he had.
"What's great about that," Schneeberger explained, "is we're starting to get mail from people who say that we have shut down the Time magazine inbox. So many letters were sent that it apparently exploded.
"That's important for the editors of Time to know -- that there are everyday Americans who buy the magazine and read the magazine and who want to see in mainstream media publications the perspectives of someone like Dr. James Dobson."
Professor George agreed Time should be congratulated for allowing people who share Dobson's point of view to have a say.
"The point of a news magazine is to present competing points of view on timely and important issues," he explained. "That's what Time did in this case, and Time deserves to be congratulated for letting the argument be aired in its pages."
Jim writes,
Why TV works that way, I couldn't tell you.
Ever heard of Marshall McLuhan? "The medium is the message", perhaps one of the most important quotes as commentary on our contemporary media outlet known as TV. Oh, and there are some other cool quotes by the maven of media here,
http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/poster.html
There are things that remain a mystery, but why TV works that way is simply not one of them.
TV works that way because it depends upon images. In a nutshell it all boils down to this: no image, no story. With an image, a picture and especially a soundbite there is the possibility of a story. For example, Michael Moore could never make it in radio...ever. The reason? Because he would expose himself as little more than a wise-cracking know-nothing without an image and sound of him imposing himself into every story he does(though I do have to say that his brief foray into TV was very, very funny...TV Nation; pity it got cancelled).
Now while that is a tad crude and unrefined, that is essentially the reason. I guess that is why I feel I am more informed about what is going on because I listen to NPR, while when I do watch TV news, I suspect I am being fed a reductionistic POV about what is going on (and it can be conservative, but usually is liberal).
Anon January 10, 2007 1:52 AM forgot to include the link to the story by Pete Winn quoting the FOTF spinmeister, Gary Schneeberger as if he was impartial.
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003582.cfm
"CitizenLink is a registered trademark of Focus on the Family. All rights reserved."
"Anon January 10, 2007 1:52 AM forgot to include the link to the story by Pete Winn quoting the FOTF spinmeister, Gary Schneeberger as if he was impartial."
The story posted lists Schneeberger as the Public Relations Director at Focus on the Family. It was response to lies from groups like TTF.
Your insinuation that I was trying to hide that is a lie, so you're a liar.
It's difficult to be impartial about these matters. Ask any TTFer. Still, someone has to be right. We're still waiting for an explanation from distinguished researcher Pruitt as to how he can write a book about his research showing how indispensable fathers are and then say it is irrelevant when talking about the wisdom of children being raised by two lesbians.
Warning! There will be no factual statement on this matter by TTF.
Anonymous at January 10, 2007 1:52 AM
Anonymous, Dobson didn't cite raw data from the researchers he claimed they made conclusions which the researchers themselves said weren't warranted from the data. No one knows better what their work means than the researchers themselves and when they say Dobson got it wrong, that's the last word. In any event as far as I can tell the work of Gilligan and Pruett never actually compared the outcomes of children of gays with the outcomes of children of heterosexuals. At last count there were 67 studies showing children of gays do just as well as children of heterosexuals. For Dobson to suggest otherwise is not at all supported by all of the best science available.
We're still waiting for an explanation from distinguished researcher Pruitt as to how he can write a book about his research showing how indispensable fathers are and then say it is irrelevant when talking about the wisdom of children being raised by two lesbians.
While Michelle Turner and Peter Sprigg made vague statements that made them sound as if they really cared about the kids- while hiding their real agenda, I was so happy to see Johnny(we love you, BOE!) Garza make his homophobia (and CRCs)absolutely clear for the media.
Thanks for explaining the football thing- after spending the week in Philly-I thought it was a local Eagles fan.
Dana, you looked good- I saw you standing in the background when Johnny boy was speaking.
Sorry, I couldn't be there.
Andrea
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dr. Christopher R. Martell, President of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues. According to Dr. Martell:
Over and again the data show that a loving and safe home environment is important, not the gender of the parents. The mainstream research is so clear on this matter that the American Psychological Association's resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children, which was adopted by the APA Council of Representatives in July, 2004, states: "the APA supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second parent adoptions of children being reared by same-sex couples."
The American Psychological Association, one of the world's largest mental health organizations, would not have supported the protection of legalized adoption by gay and lesbian parents if the data had suggested that children were at risk in such households.
Dr. Gregory Herek notes:
"In her rebuttal to Dobson, Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of Family Pride, assumed that Dobson’s assertions about “30 years of social science evidence” referred — albeit untruthfully — to studies of families headed by lesbian and gay parents. That is certainly a reasonable inference. When someone cites data to support a point, after all, the data usually have something to do with the argument.
Not so in this case.
When Dobson and other Christian Right activists claim that research shows “children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father,” they are not talking about research comparing gay versus straight parents.
Instead, they are trying to apply the findings from studies comparing children from two-parent (heterosexual) homes and children raised by a single parent, often in poverty. Many of the single-parented kids in those studies had endured divorce, the death of a parent, or other types of family disruption now known to have negative effects on children’s well-being.
Those studies show that, all else being equal, children generally do better with two parents than with one. However, they don’t address the question of whether the parents’ gender or sexual orientation makes a difference.
As I’ve discussed in previous postings, the research that has actually looked at families headed by sexual minority adults has consistently found no inherent deficits among gay parents. Moreover, their kids have proved to be as well adjusted as children with heterosexual parents."
The American Psychiatric association lists 67 studies that show children of gays do as well as children of heterosexuals.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstspec.html
A 2002 American Academy of Pediatrics Technical Report found that:
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.
In June 2004, the APA announced its opposition to "legislation proposed at the federal and state levels that would amend the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions, respectively, to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples." In doing so, the APA noted:
Gay and lesbian parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide healthy and supportive environments for their children. Lesbian and heterosexual women do not differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing. Nor do lesbians' romantic and sexual relationships with other women detract from their ability to care for their children (the limited data on the children of gay fathers suggests similar findings). Recent evidence suggests that gay and lesbian couples with children tend to divide child care and household responsibilities evenly and to report satisfaction with their relationship.
[...]
Studies of various aspects of child development reveal few differences among children of lesbian mothers and heterosexual parents in such areas as personality, self-concept, behavior, and sexual identity. Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support.
That URL to the APA's 67 abstracts on gay and lesbian parenting is missing
.html
from the end. I couldn't get that to post correctly for some reason
Great, Randi, but you still haven't addressed the basic question. Why wasn't Dobson's citing of Pruitt's research appropriate? Pruitt did research saying a father is essential. A lesbian doesn't contain a father.
If you want to say other research contradicts Pruitt's findings, fine. But you act like Dobson did something dishonest in citing the research.
The big fat gay bureacracy owes Dobson a big fat apology.
Pruitt himself disagreed with Dobson's misuse of his findings. But of course you and Dobson know better, right?
Anon
"A lesbian doesn't contain a father". Is that supposed to make sense? Besides being pathetic, you are illiterate as well. I can see that you never learned how to learn or think in school.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon, we know you're stupid, but sometimes you're just too stupid.
JimK
Anonymous asked "Why wasn't Dobson's citing of Pruitt's research appropriate? Pruitt did research saying a father is essential. A lesbian doesn't contain a father.".
Pruett said himself there is nothing in his research that supports the idea that gay parenting should be opposed. Dobson cherry-picked part of Pruett's book while ignoring the other part where he said two gay men make fine parents.
"Pruett said himself there is nothing in his research that supports the idea that gay parenting should be opposed. Dobson cherry-picked part of Pruett's book while ignoring the other part where he said two gay men make fine parents."
Dobson wasn't talking about gay male couples. He said Pruitt's thesis, which is the main point of his book, is hard to reconcile with lesbian couples rasing children.
The more you keep going on, Randi, the more you embarass yourself.
It's amazing how detached from reality Anon is. He apparently knows nothing of gay families. And, more importantly, he has absolutely no interest in dealing with the myriad of problems straight couples have. And since they compose over 95% of all couples, he's simply using gay couples as a scapegoat for his lack of concern for the vast majority of children in straight families.
It's analogous to focusing on one sentence of the Bible to define one's faith and blithely ignore the thousands of othr sentences.
Dana
All we're talking about right now is whether Pruitt's research is a legitimate part of a conversation about lesbian couples raising children. It could be that other research further illuminates but Dobson's citing was appropriate. He didn't pick out one phrase. His point was the whole point of Pruitt's research.
Don't let your hatred of Dobson overwhelm your good sense.
Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
It's amazing how detached from reality Anon is
Anon this is serious if there is anyone here that can speek from there own personal exsperance about being detached for reality my vote would go to Beyer.
The reasons are so many I could not list them all because JimK would just delete the post.
Free Speech
You are so detached from reality that you can't even bring yourself to take responsibility for your own words by signing your name to your comments on this blog. You remind me of the KKK spewing hatred while hiding under sheets.
Pat Tipton
I am not a democrat so I cannot be in the KKK even if I was I would more likely get lynched than be allowed to join that group. I don't know who you are and I don't care I have seen your kind before going back almost as many years as I have been alive and if it were not for the fact that you are trying to put your perverted poison into the heads of my children than I would have nothing to do with you.
free speach
Are you saying you have kids in MCPS? If so, you have the option to withhold permission for them to take any part or all of the human sexuality portion of health education. No one can put the 90 minutes of instruction on Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality "into the heads of [your] children" without your permission.
Pat T
I care about all the kids and have no intentions of letting you are one of your perverted friends get there hands on any of them, if I can help it.
Free Speech
Anonymous atJanuary 12, 2007 10:29 AM
Anonymous, while Dobson was specifically refering to Mary Cheney and her wife in general he was making the fallacious point that any same sex couple is inadequate. While Pruett specifically referred to two gay men making fine parents that means that in general male/female couples aren't the only ones capable of raising children well and that in general means lesbian couples do fine as well.
So you don't have any children attending MCPS and you think MCPS health teachers are "perverted?"
Pat T
I do not want my children to be the targets of any retaliation (Sexual assault) for comments I make on this blog . I think you are a pervert as a matter of fact someone who knows you said they call you the little pervert.
You don't want your kids to pay for your actions? Your guilty conscience is showing. It's only the Buy-bull believers who pin the sins of the father on the children.
(Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
(Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
(Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
Unless they believe these contradictory Buy-bull passages instead.
(Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
I'm going to ignore your lie about someone who knows me supposedly talking to you about me except to remind you of this commandment:
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
I guess you have to seek some forgiveness for your sin. Good luck with that.
Pat T
No pat I just do not want one of your gay friends trying to molest my kids to get back at me. gay men molesting kids is so common it is not news.
"A phobia is an intense, unrealistic fear of an object, an event, or a feeling. An estimated 18 percent of the U.S. adult population suffers from some kind of phobia, and a person can develop a phobia of anything--elevators, clocks, mushrooms, closed spaces, open spaces. Exposure to these trigger the rapid breathing, pounding heartbeat, and sweaty palms of panic.
There are three defined types of phobias:
specific or simple phobias--fear of an object or situation, such as spiders, heights or flying
social phobias--fear of embarrassment or humiliation in social settings
agoraphobia--fear of being away from a safe place.
No one knows for sure how phobias develop. Often, there is no explanation for the fear. In many cases, though, a person can readily identify an event or trauma--such as being chased by a dog--that triggered the phobia. What puzzles experts is why some people who experience such an event develop a phobia and others do not. Many psychologists believe the cause lies in a combination of genetic predisposition mixed with environmental and social causes.
Phobic disorders are classified as part of the group of anxiety disorders, which includes panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Several drugs regulated by the Food and Drug Administration are now being used to treat phobias and other anxiety disorders."
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/297_bump.html
Most serial child molesters are homosexuals anon why is that?
Citing a favorite lie of Paul Cameron, who was denounced by the American Psychological Association in 1983, the Nebraska Psychological Association in 1984, the American Sociological Association in both 1985 and 1986, and by the Judge Buchmeyer of the US District Court of Dallas in 1985, is a waste of time.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
PTA
Post a Comment
<< Home