More Letters: The Gazette This Time

Ah, why not? While we're on the topic of letters to the editor and the public expressing themselves about the new sex-ed curriculum -- look at the Gazette yesterday.

Last week, somebody wrote a letter to the editor about the new sex-ed curriculum:

Back in the 1950s, we had classes called ‘‘Health and Anatomy.” We learned about hormones, body organs, eggs, sperm and reproduction and how babies were created and born. That is sex and what sex education should teach (‘‘Critics try again to block sex-ed curriculum,” June 27 article).

Sex education should not be about teaching children perverse sexual acts or to introduce, teach or promote lewd sexual behaviors to them.

Much of what is happening in this country is prompting our children to live and accept an unhealthy lifestyle. If we are going to introduce, teach and promote perverse sex activities, such as homosexuality, we may as well go the whole gamut and teach and promote other sexual deviations such as pedophilia, etc.

I don’t want my grandchildren taught that these acts are normal and an OK way to live. But when they’re taught all this lifestyle in school, it negates what they are taught at home. And then we wonder what’s happened to our kids.

Bobby Cox, Germantown

Sex-ed courses promote alternate lifestyles

Um, yeah, Bobby, thanks for that.

Some people didn't think very highly of this letter, and responded to it.

Here're unedited letters from yesterday's Gazette.

In this day and age, I find it not only offensive but intolerant to use the words homosexual and pedophile in the same sentence (‘‘Sex-ed courses promote alternate lifestyles,” July 11 letter).

The letter writer’s opinion regarding ‘‘deviant” lifestyles does a disservice to anyone who doesn’t conform to his idea of normal. I want my child to learn in an environment that promotes personal safety, the safety of others, factual information and tolerance. And I believe the school system should help me educate my child by providing additional information.

Our society is made up of people both gay and straight and our children need to be aware that any sexual behavior has consequences both physical and emotional. Discussing the fact that there are both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, the proper use of birth control and how a baby is conceived in no way promotes anything but a well-informed child.

Liz Gayaldo, Silver Spring

In his July 11 letter (‘‘Sex-ed courses promote alternate lifestyles”), Bobby Cox expresses animosity toward the new sex education curriculum in county public schools, but he demonstrates an ignorance of what will be taught and what it means to have a homosexual orientation.

His misconceptions show why better education and better reporting is needed. Perhaps he does not know the curriculum in detail and does not read about scientific reports on sexuality.

The curriculum does not teach children perverse sexual acts or promote lewd behaviors. What it does do is acknowledge that some people have a homosexual orientation and live in same-sex relationships.

They often discover their sexual orientation at a very early age, just like heterosexuals do. Gay and lesbian people go on to raise families and lead productive lives in every career choice that one can imagine.

Why keep these facts hidden from students and marginalize and stigmatize a group of people when sexual orientation is not something we control any more than whether we are left-handed or right-handed? Why cause pain and loneliness for a child who fears talking about stigmatized feelings?

The whole point is that any student has the potential to become an adult capable of living in a happy, healthy adult relationship either gay or straight. Knowledge engenders respect from peers and self-confidence that the student’s feelings are natural for many well-functioning human beings.

The curriculum does not promote a lifestyle; it attempts to impart observable scientific facts about human behavior.

Ronald Livingston, Germantown

We’re all for free speech, and we recognize that reasonable minds can disagree on issues such as the appropriate content of our public schools’ curricula.

We applaud The Gazette for providing a forum for public debate. But, there are limits.

The July 11 letter, ‘‘Sex-ed courses promote alternate lifestyles,” added nothing of value to our public discourse — no novel idea, no original thought and no new perspective. Instead, it was hateful and intolerant.

The Gazette should decline to publish such diatribes, and focus instead on the publication of letters that inform thoughtful and intelligent discussion of these important issues.

Alan and Remy Freeman, Potomac

Stand on sex-ed courses disputed

It is really good to see that people people speaking out about this.