Dear Unbelievably
There's an email newsletter going around, signed by no less than "Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman," as he says, of the American Family Association, trying to get people to send an affadavit to the Maryland State Board of Education complaining about the new sex-ed curriculum in Montgomery County. As usual, it's packed with lies.
There's a letter from Wildmon, with the CRC's John Garza's name on it, forwarded by a Christian movie producer name Lisa Darden. Not sure who actually wrote it, but it looks like most of it originated with Garza.
It starts with "Dear Unbelievably" ... the people who will respond to this will not be bothered by that.
Then it says some more stuff, and you can click on a link to get a pdf file of an affadavit that you're suppose to send to Garza before February 5th, which is Monday. Hey, go ahead, click on it. Print it out. Fill it in. Send it to him here:
John R. Garza
17 W. Jefferson Street
Rockville, MD 20850
You've only got a couple of days.
If you're new to this controversy, let me point out that this letter lies. The curriculum does not say that "sexual variations like homosexuality and bisexuality are innate, normal and risk-free." It does say it's innate, true, because, well, it is. The rest of it though is pure fiction.
Underneath this letter linking to the canned affadavit, there is a section called "Why This Curriculum Must Be Stopped." Like, here's part:
We've been through the "gay gene" thing before. There's no lefthanded gene either, that doesn't mean ... oh, never mind. This isn't how genes work, and anyway there's nothing about any "gay gene" in the curriculum.
And ... how does something "in reality" promote the normalcy of something?
Oh, here's a great argument:
First of all, one of the five lessons, the condom lesson, does not mention homosexuality at all or have anything to do with it. So make that "four of the five lessons" that are about homosexuality. Second, look, this might not make sense to the people who subscribe to the Family Blah Blah newsletter, but ... these classes are about sexual orientation. There are whole long sections, class after class going on year after year, about sex and relationships and similar topics, and all of it is about straight people, except for two classes in eighth grade and two classes in tenth. And there are classes about traditional families, just not in the sexual orientation and condom lessons. The traditional family is also not mentioned in Algebra class.
This is so stupid. The sad part is that people who get this don't know any better. They haven't been following what's going on, they won't read the curriculum even though it's available HERE.
Oh, that part about the "sexual advocacy groups placed by the Board on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)." Pure fiction. There were no "sexual advocacy groups" represented on the committee. That's crazy. There weren't even any gay advocacy groups on the committee, though that would have been sensible, since some of the rest of us didn't know some of the current terminology and issues. This is totally a bad-intentioned lie, intended to cast doubt on the hard-working citizens advisory committee, which held many extra meetings and often stayed an hour or more past their scheduled ending time, mainly discussing bizarre suggestions for changes submitted by the CRC.
Then they say:
There's a simple explanation for that. The classes don't talk about "homosexual sex" at all. They're not about that, none of them.
I think it is somewhat ironic that the Family Blah Blah guys are insisting that the schools should teach students about "homosexual sex."
But they're just preparing the reader for the heavy stuff:
OK, first: the CDC does not say anywhere that there are "health risks of homosexual sex." They discuss certain practices and diseases in various populations, including men who have sex with men, but for instance, a search for pages at CDC that include the terms "health risks" and "homosexual sex" returns zero hits. If you make that "health risks" and "homosexual" you get 67 hits, but for comparison "health risks" and "heterosexual" gets 124 hits -- nearly twice as many. If you search for "health risks" and "African-American" you find 1,560 pages at the CDC mentioning these two terms. "Health risks" and "women" gets 2,670 hits. I think this line of reasoning goes someplace the Family Blah Blah groups don't want to be. The CDC discusses health risks of all kinds of populations, they don't single out gays, and in fact they don't mention them very much in terms of health risks, compared to other groups.
And that thing about the "U.S Surgeon General," we've been through that one already. The U.S Surgeon General, or I should say the Acting Surgeon General, since we don't have one at the moment, hasn't said anything at all, as far as I know, about "health risks of homosexual sex." After he left the job, nearly twenty years ago, C. Everett Koop said a sentence the CRC liked about anal intercourse -- overwhelmingly a heterosexual activity -- but nothing about homosexual sex, at least that's not part of the quote they wanted to include in the curriculum. You can't tell from this that that's what they're talking about, can you?
The last sentence in the letter is this:
These guys are confused. The sexual orientation sections are about ... sexual orientation. They're not about AIDS, which has its own section. If the Family Blah Blah guys wanted to implement changes to the sexually transmitted disease section, well, first they ought to check and see what's in it now.
We aren't surprised by any of this. I think the news here is that they're going to present these affadavits to the Maryland State Board of Education. I've addressed that board before, and I didn't get the feeling they were real interested in our little tussle here in Montgomery County.
Maybe the CRC thinks they will get a better reception in Annapolis than they get here at home. Montgomery County doesn't agree with them and doesn't want them, but maybe if they play this to a state-wide audience they'll find people from some of the more conservative counties who will support them. I doubt it, but that's apparently what they're going to try, they'll see if they can get people in other counties to impose their standards on us.
There's a letter from Wildmon, with the CRC's John Garza's name on it, forwarded by a Christian movie producer name Lisa Darden. Not sure who actually wrote it, but it looks like most of it originated with Garza.
It starts with "Dear Unbelievably" ... the people who will respond to this will not be bothered by that.
Dear Unbelievably,
Students in Maryland's largest school district, Montgomery County, may soon be learning in "health" class that sexual variations like homosexuality and bisexuality are innate, normal and risk-free unless parents take action fast.
If you or someone you know has children enrolled in Montgomery County Public Schools here is your opportunity to stand for truth and fairness. At this point, legal action is the only way to stop the new sex ed curriculum which is scheduled to start this spring in three middle schools and three high schools before it is implemented county wide in the fall. Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum is asking all concerned parents to submit an affidavit to the Maryland State Board of Education.
TAKE ACTION -- Help Stop the Curriculum ...
Then it says some more stuff, and you can click on a link to get a pdf file of an affadavit that you're suppose to send to Garza before February 5th, which is Monday. Hey, go ahead, click on it. Print it out. Fill it in. Send it to him here:
John R. Garza
17 W. Jefferson Street
Rockville, MD 20850
You've only got a couple of days.
If you're new to this controversy, let me point out that this letter lies. The curriculum does not say that "sexual variations like homosexuality and bisexuality are innate, normal and risk-free." It does say it's innate, true, because, well, it is. The rest of it though is pure fiction.
Underneath this letter linking to the canned affadavit, there is a section called "Why This Curriculum Must Be Stopped." Like, here's part:
... The new curriculum seeks to teach "tolerance" but in reality promotes the normalcy of homosexual, bisexual and transgendered lifestyles. The lessons also teach information that is not supported by science. Teachers are required to say that sexual variations are innate. This statement is an opinion disguised as a fact. The scientific community has found no "gay gene."
We've been through the "gay gene" thing before. There's no lefthanded gene either, that doesn't mean ... oh, never mind. This isn't how genes work, and anyway there's nothing about any "gay gene" in the curriculum.
And ... how does something "in reality" promote the normalcy of something?
Oh, here's a great argument:
That all five lessons of the curriculum focus on and promote homosexuality and don’t even touch on the value of having a traditional family should tell parents of the enormous influence of sexual advocacy groups placed by the Board on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC).
First of all, one of the five lessons, the condom lesson, does not mention homosexuality at all or have anything to do with it. So make that "four of the five lessons" that are about homosexuality. Second, look, this might not make sense to the people who subscribe to the Family Blah Blah newsletter, but ... these classes are about sexual orientation. There are whole long sections, class after class going on year after year, about sex and relationships and similar topics, and all of it is about straight people, except for two classes in eighth grade and two classes in tenth. And there are classes about traditional families, just not in the sexual orientation and condom lessons. The traditional family is also not mentioned in Algebra class.
This is so stupid. The sad part is that people who get this don't know any better. They haven't been following what's going on, they won't read the curriculum even though it's available HERE.
Oh, that part about the "sexual advocacy groups placed by the Board on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)." Pure fiction. There were no "sexual advocacy groups" represented on the committee. That's crazy. There weren't even any gay advocacy groups on the committee, though that would have been sensible, since some of the rest of us didn't know some of the current terminology and issues. This is totally a bad-intentioned lie, intended to cast doubt on the hard-working citizens advisory committee, which held many extra meetings and often stayed an hour or more past their scheduled ending time, mainly discussing bizarre suggestions for changes submitted by the CRC.
Then they say:
In addition to the bias, these "health" classes fail to discuss the increased risk of sexually transmitted disease inherent in homosexual sex.
There's a simple explanation for that. The classes don't talk about "homosexual sex" at all. They're not about that, none of them.
I think it is somewhat ironic that the Family Blah Blah guys are insisting that the schools should teach students about "homosexual sex."
But they're just preparing the reader for the heavy stuff:
CRC's representative on the CAC, who is also an infectious disease physician, repeatedly insisted that the curriculum include the health risks of homosexual sex as stated by the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S Surgeon General. Her requests which were backed by a petition signed by 270 local physicians were NOT included.
OK, first: the CDC does not say anywhere that there are "health risks of homosexual sex." They discuss certain practices and diseases in various populations, including men who have sex with men, but for instance, a search for pages at CDC that include the terms "health risks" and "homosexual sex" returns zero hits. If you make that "health risks" and "homosexual" you get 67 hits, but for comparison "health risks" and "heterosexual" gets 124 hits -- nearly twice as many. If you search for "health risks" and "African-American" you find 1,560 pages at the CDC mentioning these two terms. "Health risks" and "women" gets 2,670 hits. I think this line of reasoning goes someplace the Family Blah Blah groups don't want to be. The CDC discusses health risks of all kinds of populations, they don't single out gays, and in fact they don't mention them very much in terms of health risks, compared to other groups.
And that thing about the "U.S Surgeon General," we've been through that one already. The U.S Surgeon General, or I should say the Acting Surgeon General, since we don't have one at the moment, hasn't said anything at all, as far as I know, about "health risks of homosexual sex." After he left the job, nearly twenty years ago, C. Everett Koop said a sentence the CRC liked about anal intercourse -- overwhelmingly a heterosexual activity -- but nothing about homosexual sex, at least that's not part of the quote they wanted to include in the curriculum. You can't tell from this that that's what they're talking about, can you?
The last sentence in the letter is this:
In 2003 a staggering 63 percent of the new HIV cases reported in males came from gay men who make up less than 2 percent of the population. For more information go to CRC's website.
These guys are confused. The sexual orientation sections are about ... sexual orientation. They're not about AIDS, which has its own section. If the Family Blah Blah guys wanted to implement changes to the sexually transmitted disease section, well, first they ought to check and see what's in it now.
We aren't surprised by any of this. I think the news here is that they're going to present these affadavits to the Maryland State Board of Education. I've addressed that board before, and I didn't get the feeling they were real interested in our little tussle here in Montgomery County.
Maybe the CRC thinks they will get a better reception in Annapolis than they get here at home. Montgomery County doesn't agree with them and doesn't want them, but maybe if they play this to a state-wide audience they'll find people from some of the more conservative counties who will support them. I doubt it, but that's apparently what they're going to try, they'll see if they can get people in other counties to impose their standards on us.
posted by JimK at 7:44 PM
18 Comments:
You mean Garza "We love you BOE" lied?
Well of course you already knew he did not love BOE right?
So did you think the letter would be full of truth?
Ted
The SUERS say at the beginning of affidavit:
This affidavit will be used in legal efforts to contest the newly revised MCPS health curriculum
Check here if you do NOT want your name and address revealed , in which case we will still have to sign the affidavit and
include your address but we will copy it and use it only showing your initials and no address: ______________.
Big surprise there. The SUERS are going to SUE AGAIN.
Ted
The suers are complaining about a statement that orientation is "innate?" That's odd. PFOX says the same thing.
At the "About" page of the PFOX website (http://www.pfox.org/about.htm), readers are told:
PFOX's statement of principles is found at www.pathinfo.org.
Clicking on that link to pathinfo.org takes you to this page(http://www.pathinfo.org/index2.htm) which posts PFOX's statement of principles as follows:
"PATH is a non-profit coalition of organizations that help people with unwanted same-sex attractions (SSA) realize their personal goals for change -- whether by developing their innate heterosexual potential or by embracing a lifestyle as a single, non-sexually active man or woman..."
And a bit further down on the PFOX About page (http://www.pfox.org/about.htm), PFOX tells the world:
Is homosexuality a choice?
Homosexuality is not a choice in that no one chooses same-sex feelings or asks for them...
PFOX thinks being heterosexual is innate and that "homosexuality is not a choice," but how can one orientation be "innate" and not any other? That's like saying people who do not choose to be left handed or ambidextrous somehow are, even though we're all born right handed. Taken together with Garza's letter, this is a very clear display of the suers' heterosexism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexism
).
Their heterosexism prejudice should be exposed not embraced. I think some counseling and prayer might help the suers come to realize that we are all God's children and should really try harder to get along with one another.
This is America. Bush has said (among other things) our troops are in Iraq to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. That means our troops are in Iraq fighting to bring the democratic principles we all believe, one of which is "all men are created equal" to the Iraqi people. It would be a travesty if we exported that principle to the Iraqis and failed to live up to it right here at home.
This post has been removed by the author.
I think Jim should point out that Garza was right when he said the traditional family wasn't mentioned in the four lesson plans, because it should be: it should be said that all LGBT people come from "traditional families." ;-)
Something else for the garzans to get worried about:
* It's all part of the Homosexual AgendaTM -- deviant oils: Some soaps, shampoos cause boys' breasts to grow. "Lavender and tea tree oils found in some shampoos, soaps and lotions can temporarily leave boys with enlarged breasts in rare cases, apparently by disrupting their hormonal balance, a preliminary study suggests."
I remember hearing repeatedly the first time around about how the curriculum ignored STIs. Unlike those CRCers who never had a kid in MCPS or whose kids never took the class, my daughter took the whole health class and I read the textbook. There was a large chapter on STIs and there were photos(of lesions, chancres and a man with AIDs- in a hospital bed). None of these people know what is in the class- but really all they are concerned about is that the class doesn't say "homosexuals are diseased." I also love Turner saying that erotic techniques were being taught when the sentence"use condoms for vaginal, oral and anal sex" was taught because oral and anal sex is mentioned. Now if that is teaching erotic techniques- does saying "algebra" to an eighth grader mean you have taught them math? I know these people are liars but they only fool other fools.
"PFOX thinks being heterosexual is innate and that "homosexuality is not a choice," but how can one orientation"innate" and not any other?"
It's because it's not an orientation but a preference. One is a normal function, the other is a corruption of normality.
It's when you start using terms like "heterosexism" that you truly join up with the lunatic fringe.
Anonymous at February 05, 2007 2:36 PM said "It's because it's not an orientation but a preference. One is a normal function, the other is a corruption of normality.".
Anonymous, only bisexuals can be said to have a sexual preference. For gays who have no attraction to the opposite sex it is clearly not a preference. The fact that gays exist across all societies throughout recorded history and in many many species of animals shows it is normal for a small percentage of the population. The most knowledgeable experts in this, all major mental and physical health organizations argree - your insignificant baseless opinion has no credibility whatsoever compared to their expertise.
"Anonymous, only bisexuals can be said to have a sexual preference. For gays who have no attraction to the opposite sex it is clearly not a preference. The fact that gays exist across all societies throughout recorded history"
Throughout recorded history, most of those you call "gay" have have had sexual relations with partners of the opposite gender at some time and enjoyed it.
Why do you call them "gay"? Because they liked doing weird stuff the mostest?
Throughout recorded history, that's generally been regarded as an immoral choice.
Exclusive homosexuality is an urban myth.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Anonymous at February 06, 2007 11:46 AM
Anonymous anyone that's bisexual I call bisexual. Those that self report they have no interest in the opposite sex I call gay. In 1948 Kinsey showed that the majority of men are bisexual to some degree. While I believe many, many so called heterosexual men are secretly bisexual all the evidence suggests that most men who identify as gay are exclusively gay. Most men who are truly bisexual are going to choose to live and identify as heterosexual due to societal animosity towards gays.
In 2005 Michael Bailey did a study using plethysmography on men who identified as straight, gay and bisexual. Although there were some bisexual men who showed bisexuality in their arousal to sexual imagery and Bailey inexplicably ignored them, the majority of the 101 men he studied were shown to be either exclusively gay or exclusively straight. A 1979 study of 30 men found that those identifying as gay and bisexual were all exclusively aroused by gay imagery.
I am sure many of these bisexuals were truly bisexual and that while bisexuality may not show up in any one plethysmograph test the Bailey study is strongly suggestive that many men are exclusively gay. Its clear that any man that is bisexual is going to be highly motivated to live as straight, those who live as gay are highly unlikely to have much, if any attraction to the opposite sex or they would take the path of least resistence and live as straight. Many gay men report never having had sex with women and report they are disgusted by the thought. Apart from your biased motivation to say that all gay men can and should live heterosexually, what evidence do you have to suggest that all gay men are bisexual as you claim?
"Throughout recorded history, most of those you call "gay" have have had sexual relations with partners of the opposite gender at some time and enjoyed it."
Is that so? Then you should have no problem showing us documentation of "most of those you call gay" "throughout recorded history" (it must be "recorded" somewhere) saying they "enjoyed" "sexual relations with partners of the opposite gender at some time."
You don't have any facts to support your beliefs so you just make stuff up, repeat your lies as if they were true, and imagine yourself to be a person of high morals.
Hate to burst your bubble but you should be grateful because you apparently weren't getting enough oxygen in there.
"Is that so? Then you should have no problem showing us documentation of "most of those you call gay" "throughout recorded history" (it must be "recorded" somewhere) saying they "enjoyed" "sexual relations with partners of the opposite gender at some time.""
Sure. As soon as RANDI shows us documentation that the rate of homosexuality is the same in every culture and society throughout history. RANDI says that all the time, without any evidence, and it never seems to bother you.
Of course you know it's true that most "homosexuals" have had heterosex and enjoyed it.
What I know is that your statement is far from true. My gay friends are as disinterested in having opposite sex relations as me and my straight friends are of having same sex relations. Do you and your friends enjoy having sex with both genders?
Homosexuality has not only been documented across time and cultures in relatively constant percentages of people, but across species too:
"Homosexuality refers to sexual interaction and / or romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex...
The first recorded use of the word was in 1869 by Karl-Maria Kertbeny.[1] However, erotic love and sexual expression between individuals of the same sex has been documented from earliest history...
Homosexual behavior does occur in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys and the great apes. Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented...
...the percentage of homosexual people is relatively constant across cultures..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
You can read for yourself about the history of gays from the 25th Century BCE in many lands across cultures here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history
Now where's your documentation of gays "throughout recorded history" enjoying heterosexual relations?
"You can read for yourself about the history of gays from the 25th Century BCE in many lands across cultures here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history"
Randi doesn't just say people have always engaged in thIs type of immorality.
Randi says they have desired to do it at a constant rate throughout history.
Let's hear how Randi knows that!
Randi didn't say anything about "the rate of homosexuality is the same." That was your first twist at February 06, 2007 11:23 PM. She didn't say "they have desired to do it at a constant rate throughout history" either. That was your second twist at February 07, 2007 6:16 PM.
Randi (February 05, 2007 7:17 PM) said
"The fact that gays exist across all societies throughout recorded history and in many many species of animals shows it is normal for a small percentage of the population."
I don't see "same" or "constant rate" in there anywhere, do you? There are no data about the "rate of homosexuality" during prehistoric times and you know it, but there are cave paintings and "batons" from 12,000 BCE. Evidence of homosexuality has been found throughout history and gays are currently found across societies and species. The wikipedia entry on Homosexuality documents that Randi is correct.
Now show us some documentation that supports your claim: "Throughout recorded history, most of those you call "gay" have have had sexual relations with partners of the opposite gender at some time and enjoyed it."
Anonymous February 07, 2007 6:16 PM
An American Psychological Association Statement on Homosexuality
"Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to "repair" homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accoutrements."
http://oneweb.utc.edu/~spectrum/apa.htm
And from the Wilkipedia quote from Aunt bea that you overlooked earlier:
"...the percentage of homosexual people is relatively constant across cultures..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
Nice design of blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home