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]

My response: Just to let you know, I am a retired nurse. I don't know a whole lot about the human brain, but I do know some, and what I posted is not pseudoscience.

Thank you for your service. Please cite the appropriate references that prove what you have stated, so that I will be able to verify your assertions.

As your arguments show, you are uneducated about the anatomy, physiology, functions, adaptation, chemistry, and physics of the human brain. Your ignorance causes you to ignore anything you know nothing about--to you, it doesn't exist.

As Skinner said, it doesn't matter whether the brain actually does something, or that it is a black box. We can just assume that it's a black box. The question at hand is how the brain, what triggers a response by the brain.

Maybe after you have some real education, you can then talk about personality theory, sexual maturation, the effects of socialization on sexual expression, habit training, etc.

Try me.

When you do have some genuine education, then perhaps you won't be so OBVIOUSLY agenda driven.

A question. Obviously, you have uncovered my secret conspiracy to do harm to you. But let's disregard this, and imagine another case. Imagine that person A sees 'obvious agendas' where there are none. What would that make person A?

[dcnd9]

FYI: This 'guideline' was written by gays for gays.

It gives insight to their objectives, written in 1987, which today is right on track. Now how is such information propaganda?

[dcnd9]

What is your point?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Try re-reading my post to see if you can understand it. (hint - the first three words are key)

[dcnd9]

Check out the information on Scripters page for starters.

Not opinion, fact....
http://www.freerepublic.com/~scripter/

[Judith Anne]

Sorry, won't wash.

There is an entire body of unfinished science about the human brain, human sexual orientation, behavior and maturational development. There is no comprehensive overview because the science is still in development. I have no agenda, only a nurse's background study on what is so far known.

Your statement that anyone who says sexual orientation can be impacted by religious beliefs is a fundie Christian and flat out wrong is risible on its face. All kinds of changes can occur even in the face of injury, illness, chemistry, electricity, etc. Sexual orientation is not immune from those influences--no behavior, no matter how habit driven, is.

If you read over this thread again, I think you will find, to your chagrin, that you were obvious all along. And that many thoughtful FReepers showed your positions for what they were: agenda driven. There is a level of sophistication here that you think yourself superior to, and again, you are obvious and laughable.

Your recent join date and posting behavior indicates you are a re-tread--that you've quit or been thrown out before, and are back under another nom de plume.

Good luck with that.

[scripter]

You've called the material I posted propaganda (post 42). You told dcnd9 you were not reading propaganda pieces (post 88) and now you're saying you've pointed out flaws in propaganda you haven't read. You are mixing obfuscation with inconsistency.

[scripter]

If you read over this thread again, I think you will find, to your chagrin, that you were obvious all along.

Perhaps he read over the thread again and realized he wasn't fooling anybody but himself. He demonstrated no credibility while he was and here and has now moved on to other threads.

As you said, he's most likely a re-tread.

[scripter]

This is why government run school systems won't allow ex-gays to be mentioned. They are homosexual activists and don't particularly care about giving children an accurate education.

This reminds me of the story of Noé Gutierrez:

A 22-year-old man stands before a classroom of middle schoolers, describing how he came out as a homosexual and going so far as to declare, "there are gay students in this classroom."

The young man is Noé Gutierrez, Jr., and the scene is one from It's Elementary, an award-winning 1996 video (widely aired in 1999) which aims to give "practical lessons on how to talk with kids about gay people."

You won't find that scene in Gutierrez's latest video [I Do Exist], however. Although he requested permission to use it, producer/director Debra Chasnoff turned him down. Apparently, she doesn't want school children knowing what's happened since then.

You see, Gutierrez is no longer gay.

The radicals pushing the homosexual agenda do not want anybody knowing ex-gays exist, for it destroys their born that way argument. Their attempts to silence the message of and from ex-gays speaks volumes.

Don't forget there is no such thing as a homosexual agenda. </sarcasm>

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Good post. I hadn't heard that story. Thanks.

You see, Gutierrez is no longer gay.

Sadly even many people, including a fair number of Freepers, will call Gutierrez a liar.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

I did a quick search on Noé Gutierrez and found some interesting articles. They really show the hatefulness and intolerance of the homosexual activists. An excerpt from one is below:

(From http://www.narth.com/docs/changingminds.html)

Changing Minds
By George Archibald
Reprinted by permission of THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 27, 2004

Former homosexuals who had renounced same-sex relations were called "offensive" by delegates to this month's annual convention of the 2.7-million-member National Education Association (NEA)

"I'm really offended that you're even here," a delegate wearing the rainbow emblem of the NEA Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Caucus told a supporter of the new NEA Ex-Gay Educators Caucus.

The Ex-Gay Educators Caucus distributed literature explaining that scientific research shows that homosexuality is not "a fixed, inborn trait."

Other opponents of the Ex-Gay Educators Caucus, whose exhibit was permitted for the first time at this year's union gathering at the D.C. Convention Center, also challenged the NEA's claim of being democratic and diverse.

One delegate who visited the exhibit told caucus members that there was "a special place in hell for us," said caucus founder Jeralee Smith from California, an elementary special-education teacher and former lesbian.

She said another NEA delegate remarked, "You might as well set up a Ku Klux Klan booth right next to you."

Noe Gutierrez Jr. of California, a former homosexual activist who is now a member of the Ex-Gay Educators Caucus, said the intolerance was a shocking repudiation of anti-prejudice views voiced by advocacy groups and the NEA.

"Prejudice is assuming you know someone before you take the time to know them," said Mr. Gutierrez, who was featured as a spokesman in a 1998 Public Broadcasting Service TV special on presenting homosexual issues in the schools.

"People made the association between us and gay-bashers," he said. "I mean, they definitely lumped us in with a whole lot of bad and came to our booth with that attitude, not open in any way to learning. Isn't that funny? So at an educators caucus, there is no learning taking place. No one who came to yell at us or who could be angry with us came with an open mind or were ready to learn anything."

Opposition to the message of the Ex-Gay Educators Caucus is led by Kevin Jennings, a former private school teacher in Massachusetts and founder of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network. Mr. Jennings is a partner with the NEA in promoting acceptance of homosexuality through curriculum materials in the nation's schools as early as kindergarten and elementary grades. He was given the NEA's human rights "creative leadership" award at this year's convention.

"Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation's public schools," Mr. Jennings said in a publication of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network. "A line has been drawn. There is no 'other side' when you're talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students."

Warren Throckmorton, past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association, disagreed.

"Kids want to understand themselves. It's very early in life to make a definition about one's sexual identity. Educators should give kids options to wait awhile, to consider a straight identity if they would rather that," he said.

The article goes on...

[scripter]

Sadly even many people, including a fair number of Freepers, will call Gutierrez a liar.

Indeed. Or they'll say he's bisexual, or he wasn't a homosexual in the first place. I can't help but shake my head at the ignorance of some of our own.

We even have a number of ex-gays on FreeRepublic.

[scripter]

That's a great article. I posted it here 2.5 years ago: Changing Minds. :-)

[LtdGovt]

It gives insight to their objectives, written in 1987, which today is right on track. Now how is such information propaganda?

I thought it was. Anyway, every movement has its objectives and strategies with which to achieve those objectives. I'm reminded of how conservative activists, most notably Paul Weyrich, helped to turn the liberal consensus in this country into a conservative one.

[LtdGovt]

Not opinion, fact....

It's a fact that there is no such thing as evolution? That underscores that a person is primarily concerned with ideology and not with facts.

[LtdGovt]

There is an entire body of unfinished science about the human brain, human sexual orientation, behavior and maturational development. There is no comprehensive overview because the science is still in development. I have no agenda, only a nurse's background study on what is so far known.

Well, go on. There is no need for a comprehensive overview. Just refer to the relevant articles in the medical, biological or scientific journals, and I'll look them up. Put up or tone down. As far as agendas go, you need not deny that you don't have an agenda. I'm not a person who makes foul and baseless allegations against other people.

Your statement that anyone who says sexual orientation can be impacted by religious beliefs is a fundie Christian and flat out wrong is risible on its face. All kinds of changes can occur even in the face of injury, illness, chemistry, electricity, etc. Sexual orientation is not immune from those influences--no behavior, no matter how habit driven, is.

I know that injury or illness, any experience that comes with shock, can have a great effect. But religion? Don't think so. But anyway, since you are going to supply me with the articles, I'm about to be proven wrong, so these comments will not matter that much.

If you read over this thread again, I think you will find, to your chagrin, that you were obvious all along. And that many thoughtful FReepers showed your positions for what they were: agenda driven. There is a level of sophistication here that you think yourself superior to, and again, you are obvious and laughable.

I had already conceded that I am part of an elaborate conspiracy to harm you. There is no need for you to reiterate that, since that has already been established. However, I'm curious as to how you would label a person who sees conspiracies and agendas where there are none. (That doesn't refer to you, since you are merely stating the facts.)

Your recent join date and posting behavior indicates you are a re-tread--that you've quit or been thrown out before, and are back under another nom de plume.

Well, you have to right to be wrong, and even to believe that another person would spend a month posting on this website, as to get the chance to convince you. If you really believed that, would you have responded thrice to my posts? I probably shouldn't have said that, because now I will be denied the articles in the medical journals, for the psychological response will be an attempt to 'prove' that you really do believe, what you say you believe.

Thus far, your comments have been rather shallow. Mere assertions. But the subject matter is really interesting. Therefore, I hope that you don't behave in a childish manner and you do supply me with the material I have requested.

[LtdGovt]

You've called the material I posted propaganda (post 42). You told dcnd9 you were not reading propaganda pieces (post 88) and now you're saying you've pointed out flaws in propaganda you haven't read.

Wrong again. I've pointed out the flaws in your assertions, so much so that you didn't bother to defend them.

Perhaps he read over the thread again and realized he wasn't fooling anybody but himself.

A rather fanciful claim, but amusing nonetheless.

He demonstrated no credibility while he was and here and has now moved on to other threads.

Facts are stubborn things, my friend. You need to keep that in mind.

As you said, he's most likely a re-tread.

You're supposed to ping someone when you're talking about him, instead of talking behind his back in this immoral fashion.

[Judith Anne]

You're supposed to ping someone when you're talking about him, instead of talking behind his back in this immoral fashion

You! Talking about immorality!

I'm happy to respond and bump this thread. Let everyone read it, and decide for themselves.

[scripter]

That's just more obfuscation. When caught pushing obfuscation you attempt to use more obfuscation and misdirection.

I'm more than happy to let everyone make up their own minds as to who as the credibility here.

[scripter]

You're supposed to ping someone when you're talking about him, instead of talking behind his back in this immoral fashion.

You shown your morals through-out this thread. You're credibility here is non-existent.