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
Indeed. It's too bad GLSEN and other radical homosexual organizations insist on pushing homosexual and other sexual expressions on today's school children.
In our schools today we have gay, lesbian, transsexual, LUGs (Lesbian Until Graduation) and others. I think it would be very interesting to see statistics on those who identify in any of the above categories from the following pool: government, private and home schools. Because environment is the major factor, I would think those who homeschool would have the lowest statistic by huge margin.
Indeed! Sometimes some of us forget the battle we're fighting here at FreeRepublic.
No credibility, that's for sure. Still, we have to give him some credit as he is well practiced in two areas: obfuscation and misdirection.
When you're talking about involuntary behavior like attraction, you really cannot talk about anything close to a choice. You might want to talk about the influence of genes and environment. But if you're talking about behavior, that's a choice 100% of the time.
There's something we can agree upon. Ex-gays will tell you the same thing. That is, they will tell you their same-sex attraction wasn't a choice because they were previously confused.
But if you're talking about behavior, that's a choice 100% of the time.
There's another point we can agree on.
I hope that's not the end of what we agree on.
Imagine Bailey and Pillard grabbed a rock and went to the top of a mountain. They slowly rolled the rock through the snow until they had a 20 foot snowball. At this point they told everybody: "Hey, look at this evidence we've gathered." And everybody, assuming the snowball contained some substance, accepted their evidence at face value.
But in time the snowball melted and Bailey and Pillard were left holding the same rock with which they started, and that rock is just a rock, nothing more.
That's why the Gladue quote I provided earlier is so appropriate: "If research is buried it will only come back to bite us later."
A .5 correlation is called a huge role.
Think about that rock. Besides that, Bailey and Pillard would disagree with you that genes play a huge role.
bttt
Nice metaphor, but what does that have to do with anything?
Are you disputing the .15 correlation rate for dizygotic twins, and .5 correlation for monozygotic twins? That's what the reference book says.
Answering this question will help me understand from where you're coming: Do you think the Kinsey study was based on valid samples? That's a very relevant question for this topic. Here's another off topic but relevant question: Is Al Gore's global warming based on sound science?
I really did not understand what it had to do with the survey. On the face of it, it sounded like a total nonsequitur. There was no direct way I could relate rocks and snowballs to a survey.
So you're concerned that their study allegedly disregarded scientific principles and did not take a valid sample. I don't know about whether either was violated when making the survey, but I think it would be very difficult to get a valid sample of twins when one of the twins is gay. If more surveys are done, then a fusion of those surveys might well produce something that you would agree, is worthy.
Kinsey: As far as I know, he took his subjects from a prison. That would not make a valid sample.
Gore: I think that the earth might well be warming, somewhat, but due to natural causes, since most of the greenhouse gases come from natural sources.
“Informal Logic” I thought there was no such thing, so I did what every intelligent person does, I Googled it (grin) it turns out that there is, but it is not what either of you are saying it is…
Informal Logic is using everyday language to explain “formal Logic” informal Logic does not allow for the skipping of steps in a logical conclusion, rather it requires those steps be explained in the language a six year old could understand.
The Stanford encyclopedia of Pilosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/ )
Says “Though informal logic is sometimes portrayed as a theoretical alternative to formal logic, the relationship between the two is more complex than this suggests. While the attempt to teach good reasoning and critical thinking is inevitably couched in natural language, research in informal logic may employ formal methods and one could argue that the informal accounts of argument in which informal logic specializes can in principle be formalized. Recent work in computational modelling, which attempts to implement informal logic models of natural-language reasoning, suggests that defeasible (non-monotonic) logic, probability theory and other non-classical formal frameworks may be well suited to this task.”
Wikipedia has a much simpler explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic )
Informal logic or non-formal logic is the study of arguments as presented in ordinary language, as contrasted with the presentations of arguments in an artificial, formal, or technical language (see formal logic). Johnson and Blair (1987) define informal logic as "a branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, criticism and construction of argumentation in everyday discourse."
So, there is such a thing as informal logic, and it has to follow the same form as “Logic” just with a dumbed down vocabulary.
Everybody happy? I didn’t think so…
I appreciate the fact that you took some time to do research, but I disagree with your conclusions, it has nothing to do with the vocabulary. Let me make it even more simple than Wikipedia made it. Formal logic is deductive, and informal logic is inductive. If you can prove the premises in formal logic, then the conclusion is indisputable. On the other hand, informal logic is inherently uncertain.
Here's an example of formal logic (you know this one):
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal
If you prove 1 and 2, 3 follows automatically.
Here's an example of informal logic:
We were told that we went to Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction.
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Therefore, our government lied to us.
You can see what's going on here. Even if you do prove that points 1 and 2 are true, point 3 doesn't follow automatically, as it would if we were utilizing formal logic. Formal logic is seldom used, because it's impractical.
Indeed, I was not familiar with the term you used. I'll look into this BP survey, and the things that scientists have said about it, some day. Not to worry, I'm sure that this will not be the last discussion we'll ever have.
As an analyst, by nature and training (computer analyst to be specific)
I have had many classes in Logic, and logical constructs. I cannot resist the arguments being made in your posts!
If you don’t mind, may I join the conversation, from a strictly “Logical” or “Debate” perspective?
You said “It seemed as if you were merely expressing your own frustration - a reaction people often have when they try engage me.”
This statement is so full of assumptions that I cannot resist examining it closer.
A) You assume the other poster is frustrated.
B) You assume any frustration the other poster is caused by you and not say a toothache.
C) You assume that this frustration is similar to other frustrations you have observed with others who were dealing with you.
I) you admit that others are frustrated by you
II) You assume this is for a common cause
III) You assume that the reason for this frustration that you observe is that all the other people you have frustrated cannot follow your “Logic”.
IV) You assume that your intellect is superior to every one’s who is frustrated by you.
V) You conclude that this poster is frustrated with you for the same reason that others have been frustrated with you because you are using logical constructs they are not capable of following.
D) You assume you are logical and everyone else is not.
From this statement we can assume that either the majority of the people are not logical, or you are not logical and frustrate everyone else who is.
This reminds me of the Bill Clinton argument about Monica, Who are you going to believe me, or the 42 liars over there (Please understand I mean no comparison with Bill Clinton, merely that he is the one who used that argument last in my memory)
Let’s go further into your post, shall we?
You said “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.”
You assert that homosexuality is not a “character, and personality issue” you offer no supporting evidence for this bald assertion, and continue on to build upon this bald assertion with “While those can be somehow molded“
Following an assertion with the statement that if your assertion can be proven wrong, your argument fails is like painting a great big bulls eye on your logical weaknesses, don’t do this (In a debate I would have slaughtered you with this)
You add yet another assertion with out any visible means of support “it's far more difficult to affect something like one's sexual orientation.”
I would reply to this with “I know a therapist who decided he was homosexual after 15 years of marriage , he lived as a homosexual for 6 years, then went straight again. He basically changed his mind, and decided he was not homosexual anymore.”
(While this is a true story. But I am using it as an example here) see how quickly the “Bald Assertion” arguments fall by the way side? This is a poor debate technique as it allows your opponent with a single story (even an exceptional story which is not the norm) to prove your point wrong because you spoke in absolutes about a bald assertion.
Debating 101 “Never speak in absolutes” /Humor
Next, you give your opponent (in the debate) an opportunity to utterly destroy your argument with absolutely no research by asking him / her “Do you think you can make yourself attracted to men? I don't think so.”
While you assume an answer, all the debater of the opposite side would have to say is “Well, I struggled with same gender attraction as a teenager, but I am happy with the choice I made.” And BOOM all your arguments come crashing down around your ears because you allowed the opponent to utterly destroy your arguments with a personal story. Worse yet, the story does not even have to be true, merely believable, since it is about what he thinks! The worst for you is, your opponent can get away Scott free with saying this as it is un-checkable, and if anyone says later “Did you…” he / she can say “You know that was just debate…”
Lastly, you attack his story about a man (which he will be able to use to do exactly what I just said) and picked at the least important part of it in an attempt to make the story look petty. In reality, you have legitimately allowed him to bring the story back in his next post to destroy your arguments.
In conclusion, you are not using “Logic”, and you are not using the definition of “Informal Logic” I looked up earlier. From just the information in this post, I could tell you why you frustrate everyone else, but I also know from this post that you will not accept that. You will continue to believe you are the one who is logical.
May I ping you to join in debates that I am going to be in on FR?
May I have a list of the topics you consider important and your position on them?
Thank you very much for the amusement you provided me today.
As an analyst, by nature and training (computer analyst to be specific)
I have had many classes in Logic, and logical constructs. I cannot resist the arguments being made in your posts!
If you don’t mind, may I join the conversation, from a strictly “Logical” or “Debate” perspective?
You said “It seemed as if you were merely expressing your own frustration - a reaction people often have when they try engage me.”
This statement is so full of assumptions that I cannot resist examining it closer.
A) You assume the other poster is frustrated.
B) You assume any frustration the other poster is caused by you and not say a toothache.
C) You assume that this frustration is similar to other frustrations you have observed with others who were dealing with you.
I) you admit that others are frustrated by you
II) You assume this is for a common cause
III) You assume that the reason for this frustration that you observe is that all the other people you have frustrated cannot follow your “Logic”.
IV) You assume that your intellect is superior to every one’s who is frustrated by you.
V) You conclude that this poster is frustrated with you for the same reason that others have been frustrated with you because you are using logical constructs they are not capable of following.
D) You assume you are logical and everyone else is not.
From this statement we can assume that either the majority of the people are not logical, or you are not logical and frustrate everyone else who is.
This reminds me of the Bill Clinton argument about Monica, Who are you going to believe me, or the 42 liars over there (Please understand I mean no comparison with Bill Clinton, merely that he is the one who used that argument last in my memory)
Let’s go further into your post, shall we?
You said “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.”
You assert that homosexuality is not a “character, and personality issue” you offer no supporting evidence for this bald assertion, and continue on to build upon this bald assertion with “While those can be somehow molded“
Following an assertion with the statement that if your assertion can be proven wrong, your argument fails is like painting a great big bulls eye on your logical weaknesses, don’t do this (In a debate I would have slaughtered you with this)
You add yet another assertion with out any visible means of support “it's far more difficult to affect something like one's sexual orientation.”
I would reply to this with “I know a therapist who decided he was homosexual after 15 years of marriage , he lived as a homosexual for 6 years, then went straight again. He basically changed his mind, and decided he was not homosexual anymore.”
(While this is a true story. But I am using it as an example here) see how quickly the “Bald Assertion” arguments fall by the way side? This is a poor debate technique as it allows your opponent with a single story (even an exceptional story which is not the norm) to prove your point wrong because you spoke in absolutes about a bald assertion.
Debating 101 “Never speak in absolutes” /Humor
Next, you give your opponent (in the debate) an opportunity to utterly destroy your argument with absolutely no research by asking him / her “Do you think you can make yourself attracted to men? I don't think so.”
While you assume an answer, all the debater of the opposite side would have to say is “Well, I struggled with same gender attraction as a teenager, but I am happy with the choice I made.” And BOOM all your arguments come crashing down around your ears because you allowed the opponent to utterly destroy your arguments with a personal story. Worse yet, the story does not even have to be true, merely believable, since it is about what he thinks! The worst for you is, your opponent can get away Scott free with saying this as it is un-checkable, and if anyone says later “Did you…” he / she can say “You know that was just debate…”
Lastly, you attack his story about a man (which he will be able to use to do exactly what I just said) and picked at the least important part of it in an attempt to make the story look petty. In reality, you have legitimately allowed him to bring the story back in his next post to destroy your arguments.
In conclusion, you are not using “Logic”, and you are not using the definition of “Informal Logic” I looked up earlier. From just the information in this post, I could tell you why you frustrate everyone else, but I also know from this post that you will not accept that. You will continue to believe you are the one who is logical.
May I ping you to join in debates that I am going to be in on FR?
May I have a list of the topics you consider important and your position on them?
Thank you very much for the amusement you provided me today.
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.