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

[LtdGovt]

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.

Not exactly. I do know that most of these groups are ministries, religious therefore.

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.

You didn't point out any hole, let alone a gaping one. It seemed as if you were merely expressing your own frustration - a reaction people often have when they try engage me. And that's why I enjoy these debates so much.

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.

Perhaps, but homosexuality is not a character and personality issue. While those can be somehow molded, it's far more difficult to affect something like one's sexual orientation. Do you think you can make yourself attracted to men? I don't think so.

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.

You mean he's not a chain-smoker anymore? That's a shame. Did you cause that?

[LtdGovt]

I believe what you list is called propaganda, written by a group that was trying to get America to boycott Wal-Mart, which is entirely consistent with the leftist agenda.

The facts are there is no gay gene and no credible science claims a gay gene exists.

There is no single gene that controls anything.

[LtdGovt]

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?

Now you're just embarrassing yourself, at least, if there are some people here who are familiar with the theories. I gave you a chance to correct your 'formal logic'-illogic divide, but apparantly, you don't have the slightest idea.

[LtdGovt]

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.

Interesting. So your belief is carefully constructed in order to support the goals that you have. Of course, you have a right to believe as you wish, but this makes me think that I was right to put little stock into your beliefs.

[OMalley]

What?? Where the heck did you get that?

I Hope you enjoy the future. You think now is bad with seperate bathrooms?

just wait.... your grandkids will have to share a bathroom with these cross dressing, transexual, bi sexual, and whatever comes up between now and then.

theyll claim later that to do so is segregation
(1. the practice of keeping ethnic, racial, religious, or gender groups separate especially by enforcing the use of separate schools, transportation, housing, and other facilities, and usually discriminating against a minority group)

I can already hear the screeching and law suits now!

But hey keep drinking that nice koolaid:-)

BTW, This isnt soley in my head. I gave you countless examples. Which you chose not to acknowledge.

Your post to me, is nothing more then leftist drivel meant to end the discussion.

On that I say Good Day!

[scripter]

I believe what you list is called propaganda

Says the uneducated LtdGovt. You let me know when you want to discuss facts.

[LtdGovt]

You have a legitimate concern. If you really believe that it is going to happen, then I think you should enter into a bet with me. I'm willing to bet on the following predictions about 2030, 2040, 2050, any year that you would choose (depending on your age):

1. Bathrooms will still be seperate, with at least 60% so
2. Pedophiles will face harsher punishment than they do today.

What do you say?

[LtdGovt]

Says the uneducated LtdGovt.

Says a person who doesn't even know that multiple genes govern a single outcome? I don't want to offend you, you seem really fragile, but you shouldn't be calling me uneducated (not that I really care).

You let me know when you want to discuss facts.

I believe there are better places for gathering objective truth than Wal-Mart hating AFA.

[OMalley]

Okay Ill take that bet....

By or before 2030 there will be no seperate bathrooms.

before 2020 (or within the next 10 years)you will see atleast one law suit arguing that seperate bathrooms are a form of segregation (im betting before)

As for pedophiles. I think thats a longer haul. It has taken atleast 20-30 years for us to get this far with homosexuals. so i say by 2050, the laws will be more favorable to pediophiles.

Of course I am hoping i am wrong on all accounts so even if I lose, i win :-)

Are we on?

[scripter]

You're certainly demonstrating your ignorance on this subject all the while trying to put across and educated position on the subject. And in post 33 you said you don't have any interest in wasting too much time on this subject.

You're talking to somebody who's spent years studying this issue who also just so happens to have one of the largest databases in the world on this subject. Obviously you're the uneducated fragile one in this discussion, but throw out some more obfuscation!

Says a person who doesn't even know that multiple genes govern a single outcome?

Psst. That's the homosexual agenda talking point, not mine. Whoops.

And your reference to Wal-Mart is misdirection. Again, get back to me when you're interested in discussing facts.

[thehumanlynx]

ping to read the response to your post.

[LtdGovt]

We have an agreement in principle, but the specific parts need to be worked out yet.

For example, I imagine that some fruitcake has already filed a lawsuit alleging that seperate bathrooms are discriminatory. There's no way to know. And if there has been none, anyone filing a lawsuit would be considered a validation of your point, even if he or she has been laughed out of the courtroom. I don't think that should be part of the bet.

And I really feel like I'm cheating you. Let me explain why:

You are obviously genuinely concerned about these matters. However, most likely, this concern has been created by alarmist rhetoric about the state of our society, which has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
I've never lost a bet in my life that had anything to do with politics or scientific matters, and I have made tens of them. It's a great way to shut people up when they don't have the slightest clue of what they're talking about (of course, this is not what I'm planning with you, since it's not as if I can't avoid listening to what you have to say, as it is with people in real life). You probably have a skewed assessment of the probability that these things are going to happen. Therefore, you might be overconfident of of your own chances - and less confident when it comes to the health of our society.

For these reasons, and because I think you have a family to feed, I propose the token sum of $1 - with odds of 1-100 in my favor (and even that is an overstatement of the chance that these things are going to happen). If I win, you pay me $1. If you win, I pay you $100.

You are hoping that these things will not happen. I, on the other hand, know that these things are not going to happen.

Please Freepmail me, then we can work this out in more detail. I responded so that people would not think that I was willing to challenge you to make a bet, but not so willing to take the bet.

[LtdGovt]

You're certainly demonstrating your ignorance on this subject all the while trying to put across and educated position on the subject. And in post 33 you said you don't have any interest in wasting too much time on this subject.

And I reiterate that. I have zero interest in wasting years of my life working on this subject. I'm not obsessed with the issue, I can tell you that.

You're talking to somebody who's spent years studying this issue who also just so happens to have one of the largest databases in the world on this subject. Obviously you're the uneducated fragile one in this discussion, but throw out some more obfuscation!

It's interesting to read your response, and the aggressiveness thereof. For the second time, you have called me 'uneducated'. And while I observed that you seem fragile, which is by no means a definitive statement, you have made a factual assertion about my supposed fragility, and called it 'obvious'. This is not the response of a person who is confident of himself, I can tell you that.

As for you supposed years of study, and your 'largest database in the world', here's what I think: the value of research and reading time depends not on the quantity of what you have read, but on the quality. Some conspiracy theorists spend all their lives reading about conspiracy theories, and fabricating new ones. Yet the quality of what they have read is very low, and so is the quality of your 'database', if the links you have posted earlier are an accurate representation. In fact, they are conspiracy theories. I'm interested in fact, not fiction. Objective, not subjective. And you are sorely lacking in that respect, unfortunately.

Psst. That's the homosexual agenda talking point, not mine. Whoops.

Quite right. However, you responded to my point that it is highly probably that the subject matter is partly genetic, by saying that there is no single gay gene, and therefore, it cannot be genetic in any form or way. Obviously, if you're thinking along, you're realizing your mistake. You assumed that a failure to find a single gene prove that it is not genetic whatsoever, which is not true.

And your reference to Wal-Mart is misdirection.

It is not misdirection. If they're wrong about Wal-Mart, they can be wrong about other things. And they are, often deliberately I think, to aid their own fundraising.

Again, get back to me when you're interested in discussing facts.

I'm not terribly impressed with your lame response.

[LtdGovt]

By the way, I just took a brief look at your homepage. You dispute the Theory of Evolution. If you can't see that evolution is correct, I think that says a lot about your judgement.

[OMalley]

Okay...

You are correct, it could have already of happened.

Therefore I purpose that the suit must be given merit (not laughed out of the courtroom) with the end result in favor of the petitioner/s (no segregation/seperate bathrooms).

It doesnt have to be all over the US or in every school district. Just one, such as this article.

Alarmist? Are you joking? LOL

I am not discussing the decline of our entire society (thats a whole 'nother discussion) I am discussing the homosexual agenda.

The progression of this movement is the reality. Am I to believe then, that things will move backward in this regard over the next 10-20 years?

It'll never happen:-)

Therefore Ill take your bet, but I think making it monetary makes little sense. By the time 2050 rolls around (the other half of our conversation) I will be in my mid 80's.

If we both happen to still be around FR in 10-20 year for the firts half then I purpose the loser has to run around with something ridiculously stupid in thier tagline, chosen by the winner :-)

We need to be realistic, but it doesnt hurt to have fun.

[scripter]

It's interesting how your zero interest in this subject continues with various posters. You're not interested but you keep talking about it.

Yes, I've called you uneducated in this subject because you continue to demonstrate a profound ignorance whenever you talk about it. Your ignorance is obvious to those who have spent years studying a subject in which you have zero interest. I'm quite secure in what I state here and will continue to point out your obfuscation.

Homosexual activists are the ones pushing the gay gene. That is, the single gene that causes homosexuality. Yet not a single credible scientist supports that statement. In fact, credible scientists have stated environment is the major factor behind homosexuality. If you read the How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together article I previous posted you'd begin to get an education on the subject. After that, try The Gay Gene? for background information.

You write as if you're familiar with the facts of homosexuality. To demonstrate your familiarity with the facts, point out the flaws in the articles I've presented then we'll have something to talk about. Until then you're just obfuscating.

Your Wal-Mart reference is misdirection because you failed to point out the flaws in the articles. The AFA articles referenced are supported by the information found here. Search for GLSEN and you'll find more than enough to support the AFA articles. You'll read a lot of information similar to:

These books are in middle and high schools around the nation.

"Doing it: Gay men...Many people don't know the anus is not only an organ to remove waste. It's very sexually exciteable...Your first few times having anal sex might be a little hard. You may have to practice a bit before it starts feeling really good. I sure did." (pg. 81)

Unfortunately, there's too much information there for somebody with zero interest in the subject.

And don't forget the APA Has No Disagreement With the Treatment of Unwanted Homosexual Attraction. The activists and liberals in the APA are losing the ill-gotten ground they grabbed in the 70s.

[scripter]

I'm not interested in the politics surrounding homosexuality nor the politics surrounding evolution.

[dcnd9]

"You don't need to claim that 6 billion other people have homosexual desires."

What are you saying here???

[scripter]

Related articles:

Federal judge dismisses David Parker's civil rights lawsuit
'The New Gay Teenager'
ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training
Gay Agenda in Schools Riles Parents

[scripter]

Another area in which homoexual activists target children can be found here: The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century. Caution here: it's about as graphic as it gets...

Here's a follow-up article: 'Black Book' for teens now advocates 'Plan B'.