January 9, 2007
Source of Shrill Sound in Rockville Identified
The Montgomery County School Board unanimously approved a new sex education curriculum for 8th graders and high school sophomores at their board meeting this morning. The district's old curriculum caused an uproar in 2005 as it included a video for 10th graders showing a woman putting a condom on a cucumber, a discussion of homosexuality and bisexuality in 8th grade sex-ed classes, and the singling out of certain religions for being intolerant towards homosexuality. The curriculum led to a lawsuit from Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, which in turn led to a Federal court injunction that halted the sex-ed classes. The groups complained that the classes would encourage students to have sex, that they failed to describe oral and anal sex as "risky," and that they didn't allow "ex-gays" to present their view that homosexuality is a choice.
Today's meeting was held to decide whether or not to approve a revised curriculum that has been under review for over a year. A product of medical experts, school officials, and a citizens committee, the new curriculum incorporates 69 of 83 recommended changes. According to the Post, however, it leaves both Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and their opposition group, Teach the Facts, dissatisfied. The proposed classes still do not include the view of the "ex-gays," but they also exclude a statement that homosexuality is neither a disease, a mental illness, nor a matter of choice. CRC has dropped a cluster bomb of crazy against the curriculum on their website, complaining that the new curriculum teaches kids that homophobia is wrong, and contends that the discussion of homosexuality will lead to teen suicide.
Frankly, this whole issue is a little baffling to DCist; we didn't know there was a fountain of ignorance bubbling up from a group of MoCo crackpots. Also, who knew they were driving all the way to Anacostia for their church services? We are a little worried though, that they actually think gay people have caught some sort of illness. Maybe they should sit in on these classes when offered this spring. But if not, and, for you parents out there in Montgomery County who are worried about 15-year olds knowing how to use a condom, here's hoping you're ready for grandkids!
Photo from n1s.
|
While IMHO the whole "ex-gay" thing is bunk, why not let the baby have his bottle and allow a differing point of view in sex ed?
Please save the flames and answer the question in respectful manner.
For the same reason that "intelligent design" shouldn't be taught in science classrooms to appease religious fundamentalists- school time and resources are too valuable to waste teaching students things which are either 1) not science 2) not supported by science and 3) demonstrably false. By this logic, if I can get a couple dozen people to start protesting meetings and generally making a pest of myself, I ought to be able to get "intelligent falling" theory presented along side the theory of gravity.
I'd suggest the answer is that it will lead to prejudice. If we permit teaching that gays are gay by choice and their behavior can be "corrected", than doesn't that help legitimize their further persecution?
Brody - I hear what you're saying and (as I said before, but allow me to reiterate) I think the whole ex-gay thing is utter rot, however isn't part of educating our children giving them the tools to separate fact from fiction for themselves? Why not allow differing theories of how the world works to be presented in the context of using logic, reason, and the scientific method to disprove them or show why they are on shaky theoretical ground? If the presentation of these ideas as "science" is what you object to, then why not make them part of an introductory philosophy class at the high school level?
IMHO the fact that we treat teenagers like morons and don't give them the opportunity to learn not just what to think or what to think about, but rather how to think is one of the great failings of our educational system.
Don't get heated, I'm just playing with ideas here.
Peace,
HR
According to the principal over at Churchill, all of the condom use at their school has been the result of black-on-black sex.
zing!
According to the principal over at Churchill, all of the condom use at their school has been the result of black-on-black sex.
zing!
HR- Hmmmm. While normally, I'm inclined to agree with you- presenting a wide variety of viewpoints and then teaching kids how to make informed choices about them does seem to be a much better means of preparing kids for 'the real world". That said, there needs to be a limit on what information is presented to them as fact, and "being gay is a sin" or "gay people have AIDS" really seems like something that belongs in religious ed. class.
Furthermore, it's really harmful to classify homosexual behavior as inherently risky- and thereby imply that it's riskier than heterosexual behavior. First of all, the heterosexual kids then have a false sense of security regarding their own behavior- "I can't get AIDS, that's a gay people disease".
Secondly, it unfairly marginalizes a group of people, which has huge societal implications beyond some hurt feelings. Take the American Red Cross. Currently, gay men are effectively prohibited from donating blood, because sexual contact between men is deemed risky behavior. Any of you who have donated blood know that ARC has no problem asking really personal questions, so it seems ridiculous that instead of asking questions about one's sexual behavior- "have you recently had unprotected sex with multiple partners", etc.; they simply eliminate all gay men for the picture. Considering how hard up they are for blood, you'd think they'd get over the stigma and change one or two of their screening questions and get a whole new demographic to add to the pool of blood donors. I'm willing to bet a dollar that people who desperately need a blood transfusion don't really care where it comes from, as long as it's clean, healthy blood.
The point is, in this instance, letting the baby have his bottle promulgates some stereotypes that have far-reaching consequences for all of society.
Also, did anyone else find it hiLARious that the new curriculum incorporates 69 changes?
growing up gay in baton rouge, louisiana, we never talked about gay people. being gay meant you got aids and died, thus i had a very confused childhood trying to 'avoid' being gay so that i would not get aids and die. it was not until i moved to dc and saw so many openly gay people leading happy healthly lives that i understood everyhting i had be taught was wrong. that was when i was 23. teaching children that it's not a choice, that it's who you are, and that it's ok to be that way, is pretty darn important to me. i could have used that help when i was growing up hating myself and feeling very confused.
In ARC's defense, gay males, like those who have recently visited Europe are declined based on the FDA guidelines for blood donors. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's not the Red Cross's fault . http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/bldfaq.htm#gm
Hill Rat -
For the same reason we don't teach the theory that blacks are descended from a different species of monkey than whites and therefore a different species from white people.
Does that make things a bit clearer for you?
(And, before anyone flames ME, I actually came across this theory as a footnote in a chapter I read in into to psych in college; the author, who wrote the book in the '20s, was discussing evolutionary history of the human mind and wanted to make it clear that the lineage he was tracing was only valid for white people.)
It's okay to note that the use of a straw argument to teach critical thinking is a fine thing.
But it should be done deliberately, and in a way that does not lend to confusion or detract from the purpose of the class which, in this case, is sex-ed.
Furthermore, if you're using the subject for didactic purposes to truly teach the kids how to think critically about such arguments, you would have to present them with an argument that's flawed- which, yes, in this case would work, but in order to complete the lesson, you would then have to teach them why it's flawed, and I really don't think proponents of the "being gay is a choice" argument are really going to be cool with that.
We don't teach the 'ex-gay' hogwash because the entire reputable psychological community has determined it's hogwash. Just like the entire scientific community has determined that the earth isn't flat, as was taught in schools at some point in history.
Funny how these fundamentalist freaks seem to overlook the fact that the safest sex there is is lesbian sex. Last time I checked lesbians were homosexual, too. It's just that their sex acts are overlooked because it doesn't threaten the machismo of fundamentalist losers, like gay male sex does. And that, really, is the heart of the matter here. Threatened machismo, coupled with hate, propped up by stupidity.
Hill Rat - I see your point about wanting to show all points of view and examining the merits of each. However, it's my understanding that's not how it would be presented. It's my understanding that the 'ex gay' concept would be taught as legitimate science and as a legitimate method for 'treatment' of homosexuality.
My problem with this, beyond the fact that it's bullshit and every reputable psychologist will call shenanigans on it in a second, is that it does very real harm.
It's not just a cutely stupid theory. It's a harmful and hateful one.
A good friend of mine is deeply religious, and gay. He was talked into going into an ex-gay treatment. They tried for about four years to turn him straight. The result? He married a woman. Broke her heart when he divorced her and returned to dating men. And, thanks to the idiotic self-loathing teachings of the 'ex gay' dorks, he had suicidal thoughts (repeatedly) and still to this date is messed up psychologically.
According to him, he had none of these problems before the 'ex gays' indoctrinated him into believing his gay thoughts were literally evil incarnate and that he had no self worth, etc. Sadly, their big repeating focus was that his homosexuality was not only a sin but was unmanly. This guy, a military guy, had a great deal of his self identity wrapped up in his masculinity. They exploited this shamelessly, for their own twisted little political ends.
As he put it, they stole years of his life.
To teach this to vulnerable school kids as a legitimate therapy is beyond hogwash - it's a huge disservice to the kids.
picky, picky:
I guess we're both right? -
http://takomadc.info/history-long.htm#_ftn1
It all depends on how you view public education. Is it a place where children develop critical thinking skills so that, presented with the argument "Gay people are normal/Gay people are the spawn of Satan," they can make a rational judgement? Or is public education a place where we indoctrinate children in flavor-of-the-week ideologies like "Depending on your skin color, people descended from different species of monkeys" or "Cleopatra looked like Liz Taylor/Angela Basset"?
And what planet are these Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum from? Are they some mutant offshoot of the Caucasian Christians for Commerce? It seems ridiculous to be in an uproar about a video of a cucumber and a condom. Your average 4th Grader has seen literally hours of soft/hardcore porn, not counting what they peddle on EMTVision. By the 10th Grade they're already trading MP4s of their girl/boyfriends doing things, shiesse porn, and selling soiled undergarments online at an enormous profit.
Um, not that I know anything about that. Forget what I just said.
Interesting thoughts and perspectives from all of you, thanks for keeping the tone civil. A few responses to specific points made:
The Goo - Someone in MoCo has a sense of humor, no way that the 69 suggestions were just a coincidence.
Ryan - Stories like yours are nothing short of tragic, I'm glad you found your way.
Hillman - Another sad story, tell your boy to take his ass to a shrink ASAP.
Monkey - Ideally we would teach critical thinking skills in all schools, unfortunately our educational system places a premium on parroting information back to teachers.
I went back and reread the WP article. Seems to me the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum are hell-bent on feeding a negative view of homosexuality, period. Their quotes to the WP seem to clearly show they think ALL homosexuality is bad. So what, exactly, do they plan to do about those that can't be 'cured'. Even they admit they can't 'cure' it all.
Their idiotic public education scheme seems to have a glaring hole in it (no pun intended). That is, it doesn't address the very real fact that homosexuality is going to exist, electric shock therapy and self-hatred notwithstanding. It's been around since as long as anyone can remember, even when gay people were hanged, burned alive (hence the origin of the term 'faggot' for gay men), and such. Does this group really think a little electroshock and self-hatred will end it in modern times?
And what does their plan call for in dealing with those folks that are secure enough in their own identity to call shenanigans on this stupidity and won't submit to 'treatment'? Or for those that try but 'treatment' turns out to be useless (which by most accounts is the case for over 90% of the 'ex gay' subjects).
Apparently their plan is to demonize these people endlessly.
That's not really how a decent society treats it's people.
Hillman:
That's not how a decent society treats it's people.
Amen.
Amen to the amen. But, Hillman, the US hasn't been a decent society for a loooong time, if ever.
And then there's the very recent and very public outing of two very prominent fundamentalist Evangelical Christian pastors in Colorado, both of whom headed ministries that purported to cure gays of their gayness through counseling and prayer. I guess misery really does love company ;)
And then there's the very recent and very public outing of two very prominent fundamentalist Evangelical Christian pastors in Colorado, both of whom headed ministries that purported to cure gays of their gayness through counseling and prayer.
It appears in those cases that misery really did love company, at least on the downlow.
For more information on the danger of ex-gay programs and the bizarre ideas they represent, please visit www.TruthWinsOut.org.
One the high points of my admittedly boring life was a few years back when the Capitol Hilton was the home hotel for both the Promise Keepers and the Gay Rodeo, both booked on the same weekend.
The Promise Keepers had gone to all this trouble to create these really arty posters of a man in silhouette, on his knees, presumeably in prayer because he was such a crappy father and husband (I guess now the Promise Keepers consider all their promises kept, as they've sortof fallen off the radar screen).
The caption on the poster was "A Man is Best When He's On His Knees".
I know more than one gay man that fought hard for one of those posters..
Hillman: That is hilarious.
And just in time for Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend! How appropriate.
And just in time for Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend! How appropriate.
One of my boys works at the Washington Plaza Hotel that hosts Leather Weekend every year, he says that it is their biggest money-making weekend of the year by far.
Not that anyone asked, but MAL isn't just for 'the gays' anymore. The straight leather folks have started showing up recently. It's really a fascinating interaction.