Posted on 02/07/2008 5:58:55 AM PST by NYer
ANN ARBOR, MI – Maryland Circuit Court Judge William J. Rowan, III, ruled last week that it is permissible to teach 8th and 10th grade Montgomery County public school students how to use condoms during anal and oral sex, as well as that homosexuality is inborn, even though in 2007 Maryland’s highest appellate court ruled there is no scientific basis for such a conclusion.
The controversial new curriculum was adopted as a result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.
That sexual orientation is innate, namely, homosexuals are ‘born that way,’ is a theory that has been rejected by courts in several states including Maryland. Maryland’s highest appellate court issued an opinion in a 2007 civil union case, holding that the proposition that homosexuality is innate is not supported by credible evidence. In fact, not one U.S. court presented with the issue has found homosexuality to be an innate characteristic.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which represents Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, the Family Leader Network, and the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays had asked the Judge Rowan to overturn a Maryland Board of Education ruling that approves of public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland to teaching 8th and 10th graders that homosexuals are born that way, and how to use condoms during anal and oral sex.
274 Montgomery area doctors signed a petition objecting to the curriculum which promotes the notion that the use of condoms prevents disease in anal intercourse.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “Judge Rowan’s ruling gives a green light to homosexual groups throughout Maryland to pressure school boards to adopt similar policies. We will be meeting with our clients next week regarding an appeal.”
Montgomery educators defended their new sex curriculum that promotes anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality and transvestitism despite strong opposition from several pro family groups.
Brandon Bolling, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who argued the case, asked Judge Rowan to either declare the curriculum illegal or send it back to the state board of education for another review. “Maryland law says that you have to teach something that is factually accurate,” said Bolling. “They are not doing that, therefore it is illegal.”
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
The controversial new curriculum was adopted as a result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.
What if it was discovered to be an inborn characteristic?
What if it could be tested for before birth? Would it necessarily be celebrated by parents, with relatives buying little pink outfits for the new gay baby? Or would it be treated like people treat Down's syndrome (a truly inborn characteristic), where they have the legal option to abort and try again?
Imagine how quickly the homosexual lobby would switch to pro-life if abortion was seen as an option to ensure heterosexual children. Or would they become like feminists who are pro-abortion except when dealing with sex selection abortion - it is a woman's choice what happens to her body except when that choice is to choose only a boy.
Perhaps it would be something like spina bifida - treatable after birth, and perhaps preventable before birth through the use of vitamins and proper nutrition.
The homosexual lobby dances a fine line between inborn characteristic and lifestyle choice. If either one is found to be absolutely true, then treatment options becomes the next discussion point - one they don't want available.
Thanks very much for posting. BTTT!
They were all hot to find a "gay gene" not that long ago, and then it apparently occurred to somebody that if there were such a thing, it could be found by amniocentesis, like Down's syndrome, for instance. And just as a diagnosis of Down's syndrome is often followed by an abortion, whaddaya think would happen with the "gay gene"? (After all, most parents are straight by biological necessity.)
Btw, couples sometimes refuse amniocentesis as a statement that they intend to keep the child no matter what its medical status.
When our little ones were "in the oven", people would ask us "What are you hoping for, a boy or a girl?", and we would answer "Either one."
And they would say, "Oh, so you don't care which, just as long as it's healthy!"
To which I would answer, "No, just as long as it's human."
I got a lot of strange looks, but I think the point was taken.
ping
"I suppose I've never questioned that the propensity to BE homosexual may in some cases be genetically determined. BUT by that same argument, the propensity to be an alcoholic may also be a genetic predisposition. HOWEVER in NEITHER case should society condone the expression of either predisposition. In other words, if engaging in homosexual sex is OK because the propensity is genetically predetermined then we MUST revoke drunk driving laws because alcoholism is also genetically predetermined." A rambling way to say simply that whatever the URGING we have to do things that are inappropriate, the behavior is STILL inappropriate.
Where I come from, when we speak of “puritans”, we refer to people who believe that sexual abstinence before marriage is an absolute AND who insists on forcing that view on everyone else around them.
While the Swedish stereotype may be of a wildly promiscous bunch of heathens, it’s not very accurate. A girl who’s slept around a lot is still considered a “slut” and not very desirable and a guy who’s been with many girls is still considered “untrustworthy”. While we may be more “liberal” towards sex, we’re still predominantly monogoamous and sex occurs mostly within commited relationships. While it’s socially accepted that 16-17 year olds engage in sex, it’s also encouraged that it should happen within a relationship and that parents should be aware of and approve of it.
To expand on my original point, we tend to leave to issue of sexual morals up to the families and less to state-controlled indotrination. Sure, the schools gives us some guidance on how to use contraceptives and the meanings and risks with STDs and pregnancy. The teaching that abstinence is “unhealthy”, however, is not anything I’ve encountered, either by myself or heard from any of my siblings or friends of mine that are parents. And we dont shun people who made a choice to wait with sex. A 25-year old virgin by choice is a lot more accepted than a 17-year old who’s had 5 different partners already.
When we look at the US, we see a very polarized debate, with absolutists on both ends beeing very vocal. This is probably what’s spawned the general view that the US is “puritanical”, as you put it.
No wonder these teacher can’t keep their hands off our children.
Three words to give your ping list.......HATCH AMENDMENT LETTER. (print it off, give a copy to the school, YOU are now the one to call ‘the shots’)
Apparently, this is not this judge’s first adventure in the brave new world of dumping moral traditions, as in this case where he made sure that Tommy has two daddies:
Karl Hedberg got custody of his son in 2002 in a divorce in Alexandria, Virginia. But the judge conditioned it on his same sex partner moving out.
The couple sold their house in Virginia and moved to separate apartments in Maryland, a state that is considered to be more gay friendly than the Commonwealth of Virginia.
In 2004 Virginia was no longer the state with continuing exclusive jurisdiction because both parents and the child no longer lived there. Hedberg petitioned the Maryland Court to modify his Virginia custody order because of changed circumstances. The judge denied his request. But the Maryland Court of Special Appeals overturned that decision.
Hedberg was able to present evidence that a one parent home was not in the best interests of his son, now 12 years old, and Judge William J. Rowan III of the Montgomery County Circuit Court agreed. On Monday, he removed the ban from the custody order.
I'm typing this with a blush, but I didn't know people used condoms during oral sex. I guess I'm old fashioned.
You nail it.
Yeah, you could just chew some latex surgical gloves as a substitute for chewing gum.
(RETCH)
Points out another advantage of sticking with a man rather than shopping around on a regular basis.
We keep latex gloves around to wear when we’re chopping hot peppers.
It’s funny that the most fervid advocates of no-holds-barred promiscuity just make it seem more and more disgusting. Perhaps this “instruction” will backfire when the students get to see the details of homosexual “love.”
indeed, or just multiple partners
It's a big club. Welcome! I have rolled out the red carpet for you. Some of us are more like dinosaurs. Like you, I had no idea either :-]
There was a Law and Order episode on just that. They wanted an injunction from a Judge to stop an Abortion that was believed to be sought out of genetic disposition that the baby would be Gay. They used the term “Gay Genocide”.
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.