Posted on 02/23/2007 12:38:55 PM PST by dcnd9
PARENT GROUPS ASK MARYLAND TO STOP NEW SEX ED LESSONS Neutral Unisex Bathroom Created for Cross-dressing Student
Montgomery County, Maryland – Three parent organizations are asking the Maryland State Board of Education to halt the new sex ed curriculum approved by the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education (BOE). Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC), and Family Leader Network have filed an appeal requesting Maryland to stay Montgomery County Public School’s sex ed plans.
The newly approved curriculum, entitled "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality," promotes cross-dressers, homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, the intersexed, and other non-heterosexuals. It teaches children about “coming out” as gay, “gender identity” for men who think they’re women and vice-versa, and “homophobia” as a label for anyone who disagrees.
In one lesson, a boy begins to wear dresses to school, calls himself “Portia,” and wants to be known as a girl. The principal gives him a key to a private restroom and a new student ID identifying him as a girl. “Although transgenderism is considered a gender identity disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, the lesson plan fails to recommend counseling for students with gender confusion,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX Executive Director. “Instead, it implies that schools should create new unisex bathrooms for cross-dressing students.”
The lesson also refers to “Portia” as a ‘she’ when the law and biology classify ‘her’ as a “he.” “This gender bending forces students to acknowledge ‘Portia’ as a female when he is not and creates gender confusion for children,” said Griggs. “This flawed educational policy is not based on medical or scientific facts.”
Despite repeated appearances by former homosexuals and a former transgender before the BOE, the Board voted to exclude ex-gays from the lesson plans although gays, transgenders, and the intersexed are included and taught to students. “Why do the lesson plans censor ex-gays when every other sexual orientation is discussed and supported?” asked Griggs. “The BOE violates its own sexual orientation non-discrimination policy by choosing which sexual orientations it favors based on politics and not science. Its discriminatory actions contribute to the intolerance and open hostility faced by the ex-gay community.”
PFOX was a member of the curriculum committee representing the ex-gay community, yet the BOE voted to teach students that it is normal to change your sex (transgender) but not normal to change your unwanted same-sex attractions (former homosexual). “The lesson plans instruct students that homosexual orientation is innate and inborn, despite testimony by former homosexuals before the BOE and all contrary scientific research,” explained Griggs.
“The lesson plans are entitled “Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality,” yet the ex-gay community receives no respect and is deliberately left out of the curriculum,” Griggs said. “The actions of the Montgomery County Board of Education are discriminatory, endanger children, and are politically motivated.”
“What happens in Montgomery County will happen to the rest of Maryland, so it is imperative to stop this ‘sex ed’ program now before it is fully implemented,” said Griggs. Concerned Maryland residents can take action at http://www.mcpscurriculum.org/take_action.shtml
###
A copy of this news advisory is available online at: http://pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=155#155
Point out the flaws in what I've posted. Go ahead. Do it. You can't and you know it, and now everybody knows it.
Yes, it does.
But so do genes.
No, they don't. If you really think genes play a huge role then you should have no problem supporting your statement. The problem is, no credible scientist agrees with you.
It's just a matter of time...
Indeed! I used to have bookmarked a number of sites that referenced the material you mention above. Unfortunately, the websites have been revamped and I cannot find the references. But yes, helping homosexuals change and leave the lifestyle has been going on for some time, and not always from religious organizations.
as an aside, I read through all this thread and I see that you have many different discussions with many people where you ask for evidence. Yet, the claims you support (or deny, with regard to others support) are not supported in any way by evidence on your part.
The only comment that even resembles justification is the comment I am responding to.. No, fact. People who doubt the theory of evolution may be spiritual masters, but they're not in the know when it comes to science. To me this is more of a thinly veiled dig at scripter than it is proof of anything.
For someone who demands so many articles/peer reviewed journals for proof, it would seem that you would be the first to voluntarily provide such articles, and yet... nothing. Scripter provided a great many links which you refused to read or looked at and completely discounted as propaganda pieces.
I believe there is something about a pot and a kettle that applies here.
scratch that, it is not veiled at all.
Jolsonophobia?
And since I don't buy the theory of evolution, one of his attempts at changing the subject, he questions my judgment—a personal attack. He's not interested in learning anything because he already knows everything, or so he appears to write.
Pot.
Kettle.
Black.
Indeed.
Scientific truth is ????
As a matter of curiousity, how much responsibility do you believe genes play in someones homosexuality? Is it so much that they cannot help it?
As for your host of replies, I encourage you or anybody to point them out. I'll be waiting but I won't be holding my breath.
Wow. You finally provided a reference. Unfortunately for you I'm familiar with Bailey and Pillard's 1991 work along with their 1993 work. That database I mentioned earlier in the thread? Well, people like yourself, who pretend they know what they're talking about but really have a profound ignorance on the subject of homosexuality; that database is your worst enemy.
In both studies Bailey and Pillard advertised in homosexual publications and then had those who responded recruit their friends. Whoops. Besides that, their study on twins doesn't support your claim that genes play a huge role in homosexuality, and Bailey and Pillard would be the first to tell you that. Obviously you don't know anything about their study. And if you do and you call it objective science, well then we all know where your agenda is... as if we didn't already know.
The 1994 Gladue cite is in reference to the biopsychology of sexual orientation and says nothing remotely close to genes playing a huge part. You haven't read this study either. As all those who came before you, you must have pulled this information from the internet somewhere without knowing the content.
Gladue did make an appropriate statement for you: "If research is buried it will only come back to bite us later." You've been bit, or better, caught, by studies that don't support your position.
Even though you tried to support your position, this is more obfuscation.
You're just full of logical fallacies.
By the way, you need to ping people when you're talking about them.
That might mean something if you mattered, but you don't. I've been here nearly 7 years and you haven't even been here 7 weeks. I have a reputation for verifying everything where you, well, you just obfuscate.
He called it propaganda. What he didn't comment on, and can't, is all the supporting documentation for the AFA articles here
The above is the old small caliber ammunition we have to support the AFA articles. I haven't bothered pulling out the big guns.
As a matter of curiousity, how much responsibility do you believe genes play in someones homosexuality?
He's on record as saying genes play a huge role.
In post 10 he said: It probably is a combination of genetics and environment.
In post 128 he said: Environment plays a huge role. But so do genes.
His statement in post 10 is correct. His statement about genes in post 128 is incorrect and not supported by science. Not even scientists who are homosexual support his position because they understand linkage and association.
They sexualize everything, hippy-esque if it feels good - do it nonsense.
I swear, I cannot believe that such a small segment of society that choose to engage in this activity warrant such special attention.
ps. I believe I will be contacting the Hunter campaign very soon. You gotta like a conservative that plainly spells out his conservative views and they are *gasp* actually CONSERVATIVE.
LtdGovt uses typical liberal double speak. He has nothing!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.