Can I Make This Clear?
The CRC complains that there is nothing in the new curriculum about the risks of homosexual sexual behavior.
They miss the point.
There is nothing in the new curriculum about homosexual sexual behavior at all.
It's not about that. There are some new sections on sexual orientation: who you fall in love with, who you're attracted to, how you feel.
There is a big, long section of the health curriculum about sexually transmitted disease. Students will get that, they will learn about risks and prevention. It's not new, and it has not been modified in the current revisions.
I repeat: this curriculum has nothing at all to do with gay sex.
That is why there's nothing about the risks of gay sex.
Why is that so hard to understand?
They miss the point.
There is nothing in the new curriculum about homosexual sexual behavior at all.
It's not about that. There are some new sections on sexual orientation: who you fall in love with, who you're attracted to, how you feel.
There is a big, long section of the health curriculum about sexually transmitted disease. Students will get that, they will learn about risks and prevention. It's not new, and it has not been modified in the current revisions.
I repeat: this curriculum has nothing at all to do with gay sex.
That is why there's nothing about the risks of gay sex.
Why is that so hard to understand?
posted by JimK at 8:31 PM
32 Comments:
Because, even by the MCPS's Board's warped reading of COMAR, the sex ed curriculum wasn't supposed to be about "romance" between gays.
The health curriculum is supposed to be about health. The fact that participating in the gay community will increase your health risk should be made clear if a "romantic" view of homosexuality is presented.
"There is nothing in the new curriculum about homosexual sexual behavior at all."
Leading to a misimpression that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equivalent.
Propaganda.
BS.
You were the ones that fought so hard to add the terms "anal sex" to the condom video.
If you weren't going to talk about the fact that condoms haven't really been tested for HIV prevention with "anal sex", you shouldn't have added that term to the video. Add that term and then you also need to tell kids that there aren't any studies about the lack of effectiveness of condoms for HIV protection during "anal sex", and they are something like 20x less effective.
Nice try, Anon. Anal sex is extensively practiced by students who have taken "abstinence pledges" and want to remain technically virgins. That's why their STD rates are the same as students who don't take the pledges. That's the major target audience for the "anal sex" warnings in the condom video. Nothing is said about gay sex.
JimK
Anon said "...there aren't any studies about the lack of effectiveness of condoms for HIV protection during "anal sex", and they are something like 20x less effective."
Do you hear yourself? You say there aren't any studies, but then you go ahead and cite some statistics anyway. No studies, no stats. Propaganda.
"You were the ones that fought so hard to add the terms "anal sex" to the condom video."
Listen up this time. The term "anal sex" is already in the existing curriculum, the one the CRC supports. In "Hope is Not a Method" the male host mentions it as well as some medically inaccurate information when he says: Condoms not only prevent pregnancies but they are the only method that prevents the spread of sexually transmissible diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, condyloma, and of course, HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Now we’re going to be talking about other methods of birth control as well but remember, whether you’re having vaginal, oral, or anal sex, condoms should be used to protect both you and your partner.
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/01/current-condom-video.html
PTA
The last three comments show just how desperate TTF is becoming.
It's just not a good week to be a TTFer.
First, eminent psychologist Robert Spitzer who conducted a peer reviewed study showing that homosexual desire can be treated, has publicly stated that the view that homosexual feelings can't change is a political fabrication being pushed by gay advocacy groups.
Then, in the first sign that the surge is working, al-Sadr has reportedly fled Iraq.
Now, word that the Congressional subcommittee investigating the effect of human activity on climate change is cancelled today due to an ice storm.
I wonder if there will be any more surprises this week? (wink-wink)
Yes, this is perfect for you, Anon. We wonder about Spitzer. "A senior U.S. official" has said that al Sadr fled to Iran, but everybody in Iraq says he's still there -- you believe the "senior U.S. official," I'll go ahead and hold my breath. And finally, the corker for you, an ice storm, which means that global warming just can't be happening, one data point overpowering a century's worth of observations. You're having a good, good day. Enjoy it.
JimK
"And finally, the corker for you, an ice storm, which means that global warming just can't be happening, one data point overpowering a century's worth of observations."
As great as corkers are, what we really have is a century where carbon emissions from human activity has gone up steadily but temperatures actually dipped for a lengthy period during that century.
We also have a century where most weatherman can't say with any accuracy what the weather will be next week but now want you to believe they know what it will be in 50 years.
If you are correct JK, then that it is all the more reason to include the dangers of sodomy and why condoms are not very effective with that type of sexual practice. Why be so afraid to tell the kids? If not in the 2 lessons, why not in the condom lesson and if not there where do you purpose telling the children?
Please clarify, Anon. Are you saying that, because there are no empirical data for the risk reduction in using a condom for anal sex, people shouldn't use one?
What is it with you guys and the anal stuff, anyway?
JimK
Since CRC supports the existing health education curriculum, CRC supporters should be familiar with it, but apparently CRC supporters are only familiar with the lies the CRC tells about the revisions.
The risks of "unsafe sexual practices" are covered in the "disease prevention and control" unit of the health education curriculum: http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/curriculum/health/gr9a.htm#dpc
Seems like every time somebody makes a point on TTF, some anon shows stating something they can easily refute. I find it suspicious.
Anyway, Christine, what kids need to be told is the real world danger of pursuing gay relationships. They are simply much more at risk if they seek partners for gay sexual activity. Even if you are right and homosexuality is innate and unchangeable, they still need accurate information. They may decide it's worth the risk but they deserve to at least know their risk. They may decide, armed with the facts, to remain celibate or, at least, not become promiscuous.
I suggest you study up on IP addresses and maybe you'll decide whyit's a good idea to drop the decoy decoy.
Anon, I don't get this. Even if you are right and homosexuality is innate and unchangeable, they still need accurate information. They may decide it's worth the risk...
Why would they "decide if it's worth the risk" if it's innate? Are you saying that, even if it's innate they still have to decide something?
JimK
"Are you saying that, even if it's innate they still have to decide something?"
Isn't that clear from the rest of my comment? In the event these feelings were found to be unavoidable, they still would have to decide to what extent they want to indulge them and whether it's worth the risk.
"I suggest you study up on IP addresses and maybe you'll decide whyit's a good idea to drop the decoy decoy."
No, they are more than one anons.
Anonymous said ""There is nothing in the new curriculum about homosexual sexual behavior at all."
Leading to a misimpression that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equivalent."
Anonymous, I've loved women and I now love a man. I can state from wonderful experience that the two definitely are equivalent. You and all the anti-gays on the other hand are simply ignorant of this fact.
Anonymous said "First, eminent psychologist Robert Spitzer who conducted a peer reviewed study showing that homosexual desire can be treated, has publicly stated that the view that homosexual feelings can't change is a political fabrication being pushed by gay advocacy groups."
Anonymous, assuming that the more than 1,000 therapists in NARTH each have had 50 clients per year over the previous five years, then they have treated over 250,000 gays and bisexuals with "reparative therapy". Various transformational ministries have treated other gays, bisexuals and lesbians who were seeking change. Yet, Dr. Spitzer was only able to find 274 potential subjects for his study in all of America. This data alone indicates that reparative therapy is almost always a failure.
Spitzer said himself "Our sample was self-selected from people who already claimed they had made some change. We don't know how common that kind of change is. . . . I'm not saying that this can be easily done, or that most homosexuals who want to change can make this kind of change. I suspect it's quite unusual." and "I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation." and "...the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority [of gays and lesbians]... "[only] a small minority -- perhaps 3% -- might have a "malleable" sexual orientation.". He expressed a concern that his study results were being "twisted by the Christian right." - that's you for example.
Anonymous said "what kids need to be told is the real world danger of pursuing gay relationships. They are simply much more at risk if they seek partners for gay sexual activity.".
Wrong. A committed monogamous gay relationship is just as safe as a committed monogamous heterosexual relationship.
Some CRC supporters seem to have missed these items from the 2007 curriculum revisions.
From Lesson 10.2
“Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may, or may not express their sexual orientation and homosexuality in their behaviors.”
APA 2006
“A person may be a particular sexual orientation, but never express it through action.”
APA 2006
Why discuss what is in the current curriculum, the current video, the current textbook with Anons or CRC? They haven't seen it or read it or they wouldn't lie about it. Oh, wait, yes, they would- they lie about the current one and about the new one. Facts are not necessary to these people- the Big Lie works so much better with the ignorant. My favorite current lie is Ted Haggard- I am not homosexual and I never was. Also- "we are winning in Iraq" is a close second.
"Some CRC supporters seem to have missed these items from the 2007 curriculum revisions."
We all know you want to discuss feelings. Not surprising. Who can make any argument with any statement about feelings? They are subjective.
The point is health classes should be about health. The health issues arise from the behaviors. That's the relevant issue, not the TTF-backed discussion of some perverted version of romance.
Anonymous, the health issues arise from behaviors and behaviors arise from feelings - surely you're not that stupid.
What's perverted is your attempts to denigrate the wonderful experience of love that LGBTs like me experience with our partners. I've loved women and now a man and the two are definitely equal.
Well, TTF claims that its all about feelings. The real life dangers of the behaviors must be disclosed to the students.
No, TTF doesn't claim its all about feelings. Sexual orientation is about feelings, about who you're attracted to. TTF advocates that children be taught about STDs and protection so you have nothing to complain about.
The complaint is that kids aren't warned about how you are most likely to acquire STDs. Seeking gay partners will increase your risk. Not disclosing that while teaching gay romance stories is outrageous and detrimental to the health of students.
anonymous, that is like saying "careful when you are around black men" because a high percentage of black men in the U.S. are in prison.
It is stereotyping. Orientation is not the same as sexual behavior. Heterosexuals and lgbts are safe from STDs if certain precautions are taken.
and for the record, i am a black gay male, so i think i can use the black man example.
and furthermore, i think it is a continued stereotype to think that just because you are a gay man, you will automatically have anal sex.
that is just ignorant.
Anonymous, seeking a gay partner does not increase your risk for STDS, having multiple partners does. There is no risk in a committed monogamous same sex relationship
"Anonymous, seeking a gay partner does not increase your risk for STDS, having multiple partners does."
Actually, seeking one does because, statistically speaking, those in the potential pool of partners are more likely to have been randomly promiscuous and have contracted such a disease.
Yeah, well where's your statistics for that?
We all start out as virgins, if you're careful about who you get involved with you do not have any risk.
Nice design of blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home