PARENT GROUPS ASK MARYLAND TO STOP NEW SEX ED LESSONS

Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays ^ | 2/23/07 | PFOX

[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

[TChris]

It's called logic.

OK, so your standard for "proof" concerning an issue entirely affecting another person is your logic.

If you had thought about this question...

Nice ad-hominem dig there. Why the veiled insults?

...you would have figured out the answer. Let's look at the question: you're asking how we know that homosexuals are actually romantically attracted to members of the same-sex.

No, that wasn't my question. You'd like it to be my question, since that's the one you want to answer.

My question was: "...what do you have, except for their "word for it", to prove they ever were 'gay'?"

This question was in direct relation to your assertion that we have nothing but the guy's "word for it" that he has overcome his homosexuality. The question was meant to bring you face-to-face with your own standard.

Put another way: If his word isn't enough to "prove" his change, why is it enough to prove his homosexuality?

Well, what reason would they have to form relations with members of the same sex, except for the fact that they're attracted to them?

Thus, I conclude that they probably are what they claim to be.

This is what passes for logic in your mind? Have you ever had formal logic training?

Your standard for "proof" boils down to: I can't think of any other reason for it, so I must be right.

Nice.

On the other hand, if you look at the people who say they are formerly queer. What reason could they have for forming relations with members of the opposite sex? Why did they 'change'?

More of what you call "logic." You formulate a theory of your own to explain the motives of another person, assign that theory to the guy who isn't there to disagree, then pat yourself on the back for reaching a consensus with yourself.

Wow.

I assume...

Yes, you do. Quite a lot about a great many things, actually.

...that religious and societal concerns matter greatly, since religion plays a very large role in most of these 'conversion therapies'.

LOL! Your "logic" reads like a case study of logical fallacies instead.

Now, even beyond presuming to assign a motive to an unknown person in his most personal of choices and behaviors, you'll go the further step to presume to know what the motives of "most of these 'conversion therapies'" are!

It appears your hubris knows no bounds.

Thus, I conclude that their attractions probably haven't changed at all, but that their behavior has.

Of course you do! That's the only conclusion you could come to, given the self-serving echo chamber of a mind you're using.

I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one of those people, people who imagine her to be a man. Not in one hundred years.

No, I imagine not. But I'm sure you'd know precisely why she'd want to, even before she knew it herself!

[CompSciGuy]

All hail the Commisars of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Montgomery County! I am glad to see that those tax dollars you've taken from me are now going for the greater good, Comrades, as well as my property taxes. I gotta move...

Cheers,
CSG

[scripter]

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[LtdGovt]

I can tell you that I am very close to this family member and I can tell you that its not simply "behavior modification".

You wouldn't know if it was.

dont take issue with me, take it up with the so called professionals that believe a child can concent and therefore it is not rape. that it is society that creates the harm to the child by saying its bad.

Of course I'll take it up with them, I think they're despicable. However, just because some fruitcakes are espousing such theories, does not make your assertion correct.

[stephenjohnbanker]

This is pure evil.

[LtdGovt]

Put another way: If his word isn't enough to "prove" his change, why is it enough to prove his homosexuality?

As I have already said, because there are no other forces pushing the person toward the latter.

This is what passes for logic in your mind? Have you ever had formal logic training?

The problem is that I was not utilizing formal logic, but informal logic.

Now, even beyond presuming to assign a motive to an unknown person in his most personal of choices and behaviors, you'll go the further step to presume to know what the motives of "most of these 'conversion therapies'" are!

I do know. They're almost exclusively Christian, usually fundamentalist.

The rest of your post is one big ad hominem (a mild version of which sparked your outrage), probably showing something about yourself. I hate to say it, but you argue like a liberal.

[OMalley]

fercryinoutloud lady....SIGH

So now I dont know my own family member?

I can assure you If this person was STILL having homosexual feelings, they wouldnt bat an eye to tell me.

Go ahead believe they are born that way. there is obviously no point in reasoning with you. We will agree to disagree.

Most certainly look into it. youll see the same argument.

Dont think itll happen? go back and see the intital arguments and the fight that went into normalizing homosexuals (and is still being fought).

I have an xgay family member and a lefitist feminazi sister with a circle of gay men as friends. I think if there was even a HINT that they are born that way-i wouldve heard it.

[OMalley]

since we didnt touch on this issue i can tell you that my family member was not motivated by religious reasons.

[MonicaG]

:-D Nice of you to break it down for the new FReeper.

[OMalley]

Instead of spending all the tax payers money to put in special pottys for crossdresser or whatever, why dont we just go back to uniforms?

Since some crossdressers will want to wear skirts, make it all the same. crisp white shirt, sweater or vest and slacks. end of problem and the wasting of tax payer money.

I really worry about the future of my grandkids (once i have some) How far weve come since I was a kid.

I had a crush on elton john in the 6th grade. someone told me "dont you know hes gay?" and i had NO idea what that meant.

Now look at us, gay seems almost "normal" to the rest on that list. thats down right SCARY!

[TChris]

As I have already said, because there are no other forces pushing the person toward the latter.

And you know this, how? ...exactly?

The problem is that I was not utilizing formal logic, but informal logic.

Umm... There's no such thing. There's logic and there's illogic. What you call "informal logic" is a collection of unsubstantiated generalizations and personal assertions.

That's not logic, informal or otherwise.

I do know. They're almost exclusively Christian, usually fundamentalist.

Wow. Would you kindly point me to your exhaustive study or survey by which you came to this conclusion? Only by talking to all of them could you reasonably conclude that "They're almost exclusively Christian." You must have spent a number of years interviewing reformed homosexuals. I'd love to read up on your research.

...or are you making assumptions again?

The rest of your post is one big ad hominem (a mild version of which sparked your outrage), probably showing something about yourself. I hate to say it, but you argue like a liberal.

No, not really. I don't know you personally. You may be a reasonably nice guy, for all I know. I'm simply pointing out the gaping holes in your reasoning. I honestly hope to persuade you to think about the subject more thoroughly, since you clearly haven't done so.

I happen to believe those who say they've overcome their homosexuality and changed. My reason for believing that is that I have personally witnessed similar, to-the-core changes in the character and personality of people I personally know. I don't question their motives, nor does it even matter. I have witnessed it with my own eyes and ears, and it's very much real.

I know a man who has changed from a chain-smoking, belligerant, MEAN jerk into a kind, wise, caring and happy person who is a pleasure to be around. I have watched filthy, stoned, single-minded addicts become intelligent, hard-working, responsible people. There are too many examples of such changes in my memory to ever list, or to ever deny.

So, when a man with nothing to sell me is telling me he has overcome his homosexuality, I tend to believe him. At the very least, I know it's possible.

[scripter]

As I have already said, because there are no other forces pushing the person toward the latter.

That would depend on your definition of force. Children in government schools are forced to learn homosexuality is normal. And what some school officials tell us, there's nothing we can do about it.

The facts are there is no gay gene and no credible science claims a gay gene exists. No credible scientist claims gays are born that way. As TChris has already told you, the only evidence somebody has to prove they're gay is their word, which is the exact same evidence an ex-gay has.

Children are encouraged to try homosexuality. Some previous questionaires have asked children if they haven't tried homosexuality, how do they know they wouldn't like it.

The following links provide plenty of evidence of the gay agenda targeting children:

Targeting Children, Part 1: How the gay movement intends to capture the next generation
Targeting Children, Part 2: How the homosexual movement uses public schools as instruments of change
Targeting Children, Part 3: Activists encouraging experimentation
Targeting Children, Part 4: Access to children: homosexuality and molestation

I highly recommend you read this: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together. The good news is the APA Has No Disagreement With the Treatment of Unwanted Homosexual Attraction.

[LtdGovt]

So now I dont know my own family member? I can assure you If this person was STILL having homosexual feelings, they wouldnt bat an eye to tell me.

Obviously, you have some knowledge of your family member, but that does not mean you know everything. It doesn't work that way. People hide things from other people all the time, and sometimes, even from themselves. If someone's in denial, of course, he can't tell you. Ask any person who has done some clinical work.

Dont think itll happen? go back and see the intital arguments and the fight that went into normalizing homosexuals (and is still being fought).

Why don't you tell me? I don't have any interest in wasting too much time on this subject. If they were saying that it should be legal because it's consensual, then there is no discussion, children cannot consent.

If you respond, I'll have to get back to it.

[TChris]

I highly recommend you read this: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together.

I have a copy of that as well. It's by far the most compelling explanation of the subject I have ever read.

[scripter]

It's by far the most compelling explanation of the subject I have ever read.

I concur. My profile has a number of links on the subject as well.

[LtdGovt]

Umm... There's no such thing. There's logic and there's illogic. What you call "informal logic" is a collection of unsubstantiated generalizations and personal assertions.

Obviously, you have done nothing even remotely resembling logic, even as you were telling me to do so. You would have known what informal logic is. It's formal logic when (1) the conclusion follows with certainty and it (2) adds no new information. Everything else is informal logic. You're making quite a show out here, by making the claims you do, about subject matters that you have a modesty of knowledge.

I'll get back to respond to the rest of your post, it is quite amusing to have a discussion with you, but I felt the need to get this exceedingly preposterous point out of the way.l

[incredulous joe]

Hey, How's the Math, Reading, History and Science going?? Looks like there's plenty of time for indoctrination.

My kids would NEVER go to a Maryland public school.

[TChris]

You would have known what informal logic is. It's formal logic when (1) the conclusion follows with certainty and it (2) adds no new information. Everything else is informal logic.

Well, of course! While you're making up the rest of it, why not invent your own definition of the word "logic?" That makes the whole discussion much simpler, no?

[OMalley]

Well I cant point you to any specific places.

Some of it was here on FR. Some of it I learned from a friend who is a forensic phsycologist and works with sexually abused children and their preditors.

The next time I run into him, Ill ask for some conclusive evidence for you. Its a real concern for him that those in the profession would even conceive of such ideas.

The family member is a she, not a he AND we are very close. its been 15 years since she recovered.

she has also had battles with alchohol and while she would never tell anyone else in the family that she still drinks and LIKES to drink, she tells me.

I know if she still wishes or was still engaged in the homosexual life style she would tell me. you are making assumptions, based on what?

She has nothing to hide from me, no reason to keep secrets. We have talked many times about her past, and nothing indicates that she did it for religious reasons or family pressure.

I dont know what more I can tell you. You can believe what you wish, but I wont participate in a belief that will lead us to even more perversion and the acceptance of abnormal as normal.

[SouthCarolinaKit]

Any parent who allows his child in the doors of these pits is guilty of child abuse. Home Schooling is the only solution.