jimK said.. A single word about "ex-gays" in the materials will send a signal that MCPS has abandoned their academic standards out of fear.
If they do not whant to include ex-gays than they can drop gays all togeather. But I say, lets not hold back, lets let the kids have all the information at there disposial. what are you scared of kids thinking for themselves?
I think the key to unraveling your statement is the word "information."
JimK
September 14, 2006 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...
Maryland state law (http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/13a/13a.04.18.03.htm) requires that "sexual variations" (a term MCPS has defined as "sexual orientation") "shall be included in each program of the local school system."
Christine
September 14, 2006 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Brian Porter (Dr. Weast's top aide) is the staff person for the CAC. Last night, in responding to concerns expressed by some CAC members, including a student member, that the boring/purely clinical approach to the video would be less effective than the jazzier approach of "Protect Yourself," Mr. Porter explained that the four pediatricians who served as expert consultants to MCPS on the health education revisions advised that the boring/purely clinical approach should be used. In essence, MCPS Staff deferred to the wisdom of the experts, who were offered to MCPS by the Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
With respect to the upcoming sexual orientation unit, those same experts recommended materials that followed the approaches recommended by the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations. Since all those groups have roundly condemned "conversion" or "reparative" therapy ideas, it would be extraordinary, to say the least, if the "ex-gay" "alternative" were included in the upcoming proposed revisions.
Dr. Weast made it clear last year that he was going to follow the wisdom of the experts in developing the revisions. Having followed their advice on the condom demonstration video, there is no reason to think that he will fail to do so with respect to the curriculum on sexual orientation.
September 14, 2006 5:12 PM
Anonymous said...
There were eight proposed amendments to the video, all of which were excellent and all of which passed by large margins, 2 unanimously. At the end of the evening, the CAC voted on whether to recommend the video, as revised. There was only one dissent, CRC's Ruth Jacobs.
At the outset of the meeting, Ruth announced that she would vote for the video only if there were no changes made to it. She voted against 6 of the 8 CAC-proposed changes.
Interestingly, CAC member Peter Sprigg, whose day-job is with James Dobson's Family Research Council, voted to recommend the video as revised, although he voted for only 3 of the proposed revisions. This seems at odds with the "abstinence only" approach of Dobson, et al. It would be nice to think that this might be a harbinger of more reasonable (and fact-based, given the studies showing the relative ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs) on their part. Maybe, maybe not. We shall see.
September 14, 2006 5:38 PM
Anonymous said...
David S. Fishback said... Fact based??? when did TTF start promoting teaching the facts?
September 14, 2006 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...
when did TTF start promoting teaching the facts?
You guys really get some intelligent commenters at this site.
September 14, 2006 9:33 PM
Anonymous said...
Yes Hobo, that's true. No village is complete without at least one idiot.
September 15, 2006 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...
"A single word about "ex-gays" in the materials will send a signal that MCPS has abandoned their academic standards out of fear."
There is no research establishing or suggesting that same-sex gender attraction is a permanent condition. You've been asked to provide some here before and your reply is usually along the lines of "hey, everybody knows that."
What kind of academic standard is that? If MCPS has "fear" of being held accountable for making the curriculum factual, that's probably a good thing.
"(Though of course their lawyers must realize that trying to bring Christian ministries into the classroom would open them up to legal attack from the other side.)"
The orthodox Christian view of homosexuality is a catholic understanding throughout the world and history. So it's hard to see how it would be an exclusively Christian viewpoint. In any case, A Christian ministry could assist in a classroom setting by providing volunteer services. Bringing a local pastor as a guest speaker would be appropriate.
"None of this is easy, and the constant threat of legal ambush only makes it harder,"
You persist in characterizing our legal system as somehow illegitimate. It's not an "ambush" to hold the government to a constitutional standard. If they attempt to violate students' constitutional rights, we can all hope they will have second thoughts because possible legal action.
September 15, 2006 1:50 PM
Anonymous said...
"Since all those groups have roundly condemned "conversion" or "reparative" therapy ideas, it would be extraordinary, to say the least, if the "ex-gay" "alternative" were included in the upcoming proposed revisions."
These organizations have waffled a bit on this lately and seemed to have come to point of saying that if a person's beliefs and desires are not compatible, the conflict could appropriately be the focus of psychiatric treatment.
In any case, who's to say a person might not lose same sex attraction without professional therapy. The point is, the curriculum would be amiss to imply that there is scientfic reason to believe same sex attraction is permanent.
Anon (I mean the one before th last one), the very word "ex-gay" was invented to promote a Christian mission. Since there is really no such thing as an ex-gay person, there was no such word, until it was coined as an ad slogan for a religious group.
Second, of course anybody can sue anybody any time they want to. The system is fine, but it is vulnerable to abuse. It is better -- I think even you will agree with this -- if people can work out their differences privately. When a law or contract has been broken, then it is appropriate to take the matter to court.
In the current situation, the schools have to develop a curriculum with the knowledge that one side has lawyers on the line, ready to sue over something -- anything they can think of -- if they don't get their way.
Remember, we have the CRC on record saying as early as January 13, 2005: "Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis."
I'm not making it up, it's a constant and real threat, and it does not make curriculum development any easier.
To give you the feeling, maybe you've driven in traffic with a cop right behind you...
JimK
September 15, 2006 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...
"the very word "ex-gay" was invented to promote a Christian mission."
don't know if that's true but it doesn't matter who first used the term- it's a phenomena that needs to have a name
"Since there is really no such thing as an ex-gay person,"
says who?
"there was no such word,"
only recently was there so much discussion or, perhaps, obssession about homosexuality so it's not surprising that there wasn't an established term
"until it was coined as an ad slogan for a religious group."
the use of "ad slogan" is a disrespectful insult to religious people
"Second, of course anybody can sue anybody any time they want to. The system is fine, but it is vulnerable to abuse. It is better -- I think even you will agree with this -- if people can work out their differences privately."
This was not a dispute between two equally equipped individuals but the powerful school board of one of the nation's wealthiest counties, controlled by the politically charged teachers' union versus a group of responsible, and not particularly wealthy, parents.
"When a law or contract has been broken, then it is appropriate to take the matter to court."
Also, when the government fails to respect the constitution.
"In the current situation, the schools have to develop a curriculum with the knowledge that one side has lawyers on the line, ready to sue over something -- anything they can think of -- if they don't get their way."
The school board has their own lawyers. It's a good thing- they've shown some ignorance concerning constitutional issues.
"Remember, we have the CRC on record saying as early as January 13, 2005: "Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis.""
Again, this was a case of city hall vs the little guy and city hall had already done an end-run around established procedures in order to minimize citizen comment. Someone had to do something to stop the freight train and get some public oversight. That's how we wound up with the vastly improved video now.
"I'm not making it up, it's a constant and real threat, and it does not make curriculum development any easier."
Not supposed to be easy. Constitutional rights of children need to be taken into consideration.
"To give you the feeling, maybe you've driven in traffic with a cop right behind you..."
That's not was this is like. CRC isn't in authority like a cop. This is more like following a cop around in Alabama 1960, making sure they're not abusing minority rights. It's dangerous but someone has to do it.
September 15, 2006 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said: "don't know if that's true but it doesn't matter who first used the term- it's a phenomena that needs to have a name"
Did you not hear? The term "ex-gay" is now being considered for the scrap pile of words no longer used. It's no "phenomena" either, unless of course you've fallen for the term's deceptive inferred definition.
Oh yes, If "ex-gays" are to be included, then "ex-ex-gays" must also be included. Funny, one would think "ex-straights" would be a logical step afterwards.
September 15, 2006 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...
Hobo said...
You guys really get some intelligent commenters at this site.
Anonymous said... Yes Hobo, that's true. No village is complete without at least one idiot. JimK "Since there is really no such thing as an ex-gay person,"
says who?
Got any facts to back this up TTF? No you don’t just keep telling the lie over and over and people will think it is true. I am guessing you think there are a lot of idiots around here.
September 17, 2006 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...
The proof is in the pudding.
When someone wants to sell a new medicine in this country, they must prove that the medicine is effective for what is claimed AND that it does no harm.
Rather than well designed experiments intended to assess success (or harm) of various attempts to alter sexual orientation, most of the data in this area comes from "self reports from psychoanalysts who are attempting to change their patients sexual orientation (and who are highly motivated to report "success")." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html
Some behavior modification "studies" that do exist in this area have problems in their experimental design. Most lack control groups. In many "success" is poorly and inconsistently defined. Often there is uncertainty of the actual sexual orientation of the subjects (gay/lesbian vs. bisexual) who agree to try change. The "Bibliography for Facts About Sexual Orientation" in the UCDavis paper cited above contains several studies with these and other design flaws.
If treatment programs designed to alter sexual orientation actually did what they claim, there should be well designed studies employing control groups with well defined variables and subjects that prove it but there aren't. After so many decades of research, the question is why can't anyone who works to change gays into straights prove their treatments are effective?
September 18, 2006 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...
how long will it take to cure cancer what if we gave up.
September 18, 2006 7:27 PM
Anonymous said...
"If treatment programs designed to alter sexual orientation actually did what they claim, there should be well designed studies employing control groups with well defined variables and subjects that prove it but there aren't. After so many decades of research, the question is why can't anyone who works to change gays into straights prove their treatments are effective?"
Well, first one would have to have some scientific evidence basis explaining why same gender sexual attraction rises above other types of fetishes and attractions to become something called an "orientation". None exists.
Secondly, one needs to concede that success doesn't mean that one is never tempted by these desires again but that a capacity for satisfying natural attraction is developed.
Thirdly, one would have to find an objective way to filter the subjective nature of the self-reporting that constitutes evidence.
Infinitely, we could go on. Suffice it to say, sexual libertarians have abused science as propaganda for their cause. Not the first time in history this ha happened.
September 19, 2006 5:10 AM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said: "Well, first one would have to have some scientific evidence basis explaining why same gender sexual attraction rises above other types of fetishes and attractions to become something called an 'orientation'. None exists."
In other words: homosexuals are just heterosexuals with a fetish for the same sex.
Anonymous said: "Secondly, one needs to concede that success doesn't mean that one is never tempted by these desires again but that a capacity for satisfying natural attraction is developed.
General attraction to the opposite sex or attraction to one opposite sex partner after a period of time?
A gay male married a straight female (for business reasons), and they both knew of the situation and didn't intend to consummate the marriage. They ended up married for 14 years and had a very healthy sex life with a son to show it. The male said he was gay the entire time and the couple split for reasons unrelated to his sexuality. "Natural attraction" developed for that one female parter, but that didn't make him "ex-gay".
Anonymous said: "Thirdly, one would have to find an objective way to filter the subjective nature of the self-reporting that constitutes evidence."
There are ways to measure sexual arousal, but not many choose to undertake it.
September 19, 2006 9:48 AM
Anonymous said...
"In other words: homosexuals are just heterosexuals with a fetish for the same sex."
That's right.
"General attraction to the opposite sex or attraction to one opposite sex partner after a period of time?
A gay male married a straight female (for business reasons), and they both knew of the situation and didn't intend to consummate the marriage. They ended up married for 14 years and had a very healthy sex life with a son to show it. The male said he was gay the entire time and the couple split for reasons unrelated to his sexuality. "Natural attraction" developed for that one female parter, but that didn't make him "ex-gay"."
I think this shows a capacity to function as either gay or straight. In other words, it's a choice.
September 19, 2006 10:50 PM
Anonymous said...
So if homosexuals are heterosexuals with a fetish for the same sex, how would you define bisexuals then?
Anonymous said: "I think this shows a capacity to function as either gay or straight. In other words, it's a choice."
How one decides to behave and function is obviously a choice.
September 20, 2006 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...
"So if homosexuals are heterosexuals with a fetish for the same sex, how would you define bisexuals then?"
same way
"How one decides to behave and function is obviously a choice"
yes, and remember, your scenario also included a "healthy sex life" and "natural attraction" for a female
September 20, 2006 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...
So everyone is heterosexual then? How do you define heterosexual?
Anonymous said: "... and remember, your scenario also included a "healthy sex life" and "natural attraction" for a female"
Yes, and the person was still gay the entire time. That wasn't his choice. He didn't change or become cured.
September 20, 2006 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous said... So everyone is heterosexual then? How do you define heterosexual?
Anonymous said: "... and remember, your scenario also included a "healthy sex life" and "natural attraction" for a female"
Yes, and the person was still gay the entire time. That wasn't his choice. He didn't change or become cured."
So your definition of gay is anyone who has any same sex attraction? The guy has a an enjoyable and healthy sexual relationship with a female to which he's attracted. He has chosen not to be gay.
September 22, 2006 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said: "So your definition of gay is anyone who has any same sex attraction?"
It depends on whether it's exclusive and the persistence of the attraction. If one finds themselves continuously attracted exclusively to the same sex, how can they be heterosexual?
How do you define heterosexual?
Anonymous said: "The guy has a an enjoyable and healthy sexual relationship with a female to which he's attracted. He has chosen not to be gay."
That depends entirely on how you choose to define "gay".
September 22, 2006 1:33 PM
Last night the Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development met, and after a mini-marathon agreed to approve the new condom video, with revisions. The final vote was 11-1, with the CRC member opposing, and the PFOX member joining the majority.
These discussions are fascinating, I think. We have a room full of intelligent people, each with his or her own idea about how things should be. There was the much-discussed video and its asociated curriculum materials, and members of the committee had sent in comments and suggested revisions, which were compiled and organized by staff from the Superintendent's office. There were more than sixty suggested changes.
Last night, the committee (which I am a member of) discussed the video only, not the classroom materials. We adopted a number of changes, including (these are approximate only, taken from my scribbled notes -- the MCPS minutes will be more accurate here): Adding a female voice to the video Showing a close-up of the date and the word "Latex" on the package, followed by hands tearing the package open and the narrator explaining not to use your teeth or scissors We would like to add 60 seconds of more information, mostly taken from the classroom documentation We want to substitute the words "vaginal, anal, or oral contact" for "sexual contact" (or something close to that, I didn't write down the final wording) The statement about abstinence being the "only way to prevent" stuff should be changed to "the only 100 percent effective way" We want to remove mention of the word "reservoir" "Doctor" should be changed to "health care provider" I think that's it.
The committee only makes recommendations, so the school district may or may not decide to implement these changes. But then ... the committee may or may not decide to approve it ...
It seemed to me that the main issue, really, was in deciding what the video was supposed to accomplish. Some thought it should just be a minimal demonstration of how the condom goes on, period. Here's the penis, here's the rubber, the rubber goes on the penis. Some -- including me -- felt that the video should give instruction in the right way to use a condom. That would require a little more information, a little more detail.
Well, let's just say the discussion was dynamic. The issue of whether there should be a female presence in the video was interesting -- some members feel that it's the guy's responsibility, and so it should be a guy in the video. Others thought that women should take responsibility for their own sex lives. The issue of saying "anal, oral, or vaginal," is a tough one. Well, it's a strange issue. To me, it's like when you have kids, and they try to mess with you, like they'll say, "Daddy, is it OK if I use the word X?" And of course they have to use the word X to ask the question, so even if the answer is no, they've still already gotten away with it. Come on, your kids did that, too. You did it when you were a kid, don't lie to me. In the same way, you have to tell students what they shouldn't do, and that includes anal sex, especially, because it is such an important way for disease to spread. You might worry that you're putting ideas in their heads, or that you're making them think it's OK to do as long as they use a condom. I don't know, but I think teenagers hear about these things anyway. And to me, the value of telling them how to do it safer is worth the risk of suggesting something to them.
One member was concerned that there's not enough research specifically testing whether condoms are effective at preventing the spread of disease in anal sex. So we shouldn't recommend it. But really, that's a kind of argument that can blow up in your face. Like, we could say the weatherman shouldn't tell us if it's going to rain tomorrow, because we don't sufficiently understand the Brownian motion of atmospheric molecules, or the fractal nature of the dynamics of gases in an unbounded space. In fact, the weatherman's forecast is better than a naive guess, and the CDC and other government and medical organizations do recommend using a condom for anal sex. Even without perfectly well focused research, it is clear that a condom makes anal sex safer, for those who, for whatever reason, decide to practice it. And it's not our place to judge those people or their reasons. We just don't want them spreading diseases. It seems to me.
At our next meeting, we need to get through the rest of the curriculum materials. That was where the bulk of the comments were, but personally, I am optimistic about reaching consensus fairly rapidly. Most of it was wording changes, there will still be some controversy, but we'll get through it OK, I think.
Then we move on to the sexual orientation part.
Remember, the video was not part of last year's legal ruling, and was not mentioned in the settlement agreement at all. The Superintendent decided to re-do the condom demonstration video for some reasons that he never really explained. Said it was "insufficient," as I recall. So they did it over again, but Virginia, they didn't give you quite enough information (sorry, I just heard Billy Joel on the radio on the way to the Metro station). So the committee is tuning it up a little bit.
And then we will move into the part of the curriculum that was central to the litigation. I will be very interested to see what the school district puts on the table. Though there is a lot of latitude as far as what to include and what not to, and how to put things, there will be some things that are just unacceptable. A single word about "ex-gays" in the materials will send a signal that MCPS has abandoned their academic standards out of fear. For example. (Though of course their lawyers must realize that trying to bring Christian ministries into the classroom would open them up to legal attack from the other side.)
So ... the real hard part is still ahead of us. As long as people keep talking, express what they believe, explain their points, and listen to each other, we will be able to hack together something that serves our community well. None of this is easy, and the constant threat of legal ambush only makes it harder, but ... if that's the world we live in, then -- let's get to work.
"Citizens Committee Approves Revised Video"
24 Comments -
jimK said..
A single word about "ex-gays" in the materials will send a signal that MCPS has abandoned their academic standards out of fear.
If they do not whant to include ex-gays than they can drop gays all togeather. But I say, lets not hold back, lets let the kids have all the information at there disposial. what are you scared of kids thinking for themselves?
September 14, 2006 1:46 PM
I think the key to unraveling your statement is the word "information."
JimK
September 14, 2006 3:20 PM
Maryland state law (http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/13a/13a.04.18.03.htm) requires that "sexual variations" (a term MCPS has defined as "sexual orientation") "shall be included in each program of the local school system."
Christine
September 14, 2006 3:39 PM
Brian Porter (Dr. Weast's top aide) is the staff person for the CAC. Last night, in responding to concerns expressed by some CAC members, including a student member, that the boring/purely clinical approach to the video would be less effective than the jazzier approach of "Protect Yourself," Mr. Porter explained that the four pediatricians who served as expert consultants to MCPS on the health education revisions advised that the boring/purely clinical approach should be used. In essence, MCPS Staff deferred to the wisdom of the experts, who were offered to MCPS by the Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
With respect to the upcoming sexual orientation unit, those same experts recommended materials that followed the approaches recommended by the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations. Since all those groups have roundly condemned "conversion" or "reparative" therapy ideas, it would be extraordinary, to say the least, if the "ex-gay" "alternative" were included in the upcoming proposed revisions.
Dr. Weast made it clear last year that he was going to follow the wisdom of the experts in developing the revisions. Having followed their advice on the condom demonstration video, there is no reason to think that he will fail to do so with respect to the curriculum on sexual orientation.
September 14, 2006 5:12 PM
There were eight proposed amendments to the video, all of which were excellent and all of which passed by large margins, 2 unanimously. At the end of the evening, the CAC voted on whether to recommend the video, as revised. There was only one dissent, CRC's Ruth Jacobs.
At the outset of the meeting, Ruth announced that she would vote for the video only if there were no changes made to it. She voted against 6 of the 8 CAC-proposed changes.
Interestingly, CAC member Peter Sprigg, whose day-job is with James Dobson's Family Research Council, voted to recommend the video as revised, although he voted for only 3 of the proposed revisions. This seems at odds with the "abstinence only" approach of Dobson, et al. It would be nice to think that this might be a harbinger of more reasonable (and fact-based, given the studies showing the relative ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs) on their part. Maybe, maybe not. We shall see.
September 14, 2006 5:38 PM
David S. Fishback said...
Fact based???
when did TTF start promoting teaching the facts?
September 14, 2006 9:28 PM
when did TTF start promoting teaching the facts?
You guys really get some intelligent commenters at this site.
September 14, 2006 9:33 PM
Yes Hobo, that's true. No village is complete without at least one idiot.
September 15, 2006 8:09 AM
"A single word about "ex-gays" in the materials will send a signal that MCPS has abandoned their academic standards out of fear."
There is no research establishing or suggesting that same-sex gender attraction is a permanent condition. You've been asked to provide some here before and your reply is usually along the lines of "hey, everybody knows that."
What kind of academic standard is that? If MCPS has "fear" of being held accountable for making the curriculum factual, that's probably a good thing.
"(Though of course their lawyers must realize that trying to bring Christian ministries into the classroom would open them up to legal attack from the other side.)"
The orthodox Christian view of homosexuality is a catholic understanding throughout the world and history. So it's hard to see how it would be an exclusively Christian viewpoint. In any case, A Christian ministry could assist in a classroom setting by providing volunteer services. Bringing a local pastor as a guest speaker would be appropriate.
"None of this is easy, and the constant threat of legal ambush only makes it harder,"
You persist in characterizing our legal system as somehow illegitimate. It's not an "ambush" to hold the government to a constitutional standard. If they attempt to violate students' constitutional rights, we can all hope they will have second thoughts because possible legal action.
September 15, 2006 1:50 PM
"Since all those groups have roundly condemned "conversion" or "reparative" therapy ideas, it would be extraordinary, to say the least, if the "ex-gay" "alternative" were included in the upcoming proposed revisions."
These organizations have waffled a bit on this lately and seemed to have come to point of saying that if a person's beliefs and desires are not compatible, the conflict could appropriately be the focus of psychiatric treatment.
In any case, who's to say a person might not lose same sex attraction without professional therapy. The point is, the curriculum would be amiss to imply that there is scientfic reason to believe same sex attraction is permanent.
September 15, 2006 1:57 PM
Anon (I mean the one before th last one), the very word "ex-gay" was invented to promote a Christian mission. Since there is really no such thing as an ex-gay person, there was no such word, until it was coined as an ad slogan for a religious group.
Second, of course anybody can sue anybody any time they want to. The system is fine, but it is vulnerable to abuse. It is better -- I think even you will agree with this -- if people can work out their differences privately. When a law or contract has been broken, then it is appropriate to take the matter to court.
In the current situation, the schools have to develop a curriculum with the knowledge that one side has lawyers on the line, ready to sue over something -- anything they can think of -- if they don't get their way.
Remember, we have the CRC on record saying as early as January 13, 2005: "Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis."
I'm not making it up, it's a constant and real threat, and it does not make curriculum development any easier.
To give you the feeling, maybe you've driven in traffic with a cop right behind you...
JimK
September 15, 2006 2:06 PM
"the very word "ex-gay" was invented to promote a Christian mission."
don't know if that's true but it doesn't matter who first used the term- it's a phenomena that needs to have a name
"Since there is really no such thing as an ex-gay person,"
says who?
"there was no such word,"
only recently was there so much discussion or, perhaps, obssession about homosexuality so it's not surprising that there wasn't an established term
"until it was coined as an ad slogan for a religious group."
the use of "ad slogan" is a disrespectful insult to religious people
"Second, of course anybody can sue anybody any time they want to. The system is fine, but it is vulnerable to abuse. It is better -- I think even you will agree with this -- if people can work out their differences privately."
This was not a dispute between two equally equipped individuals but the powerful school board of one of the nation's wealthiest counties, controlled by the politically charged teachers' union versus a group of responsible, and not particularly wealthy, parents.
"When a law or contract has been broken, then it is appropriate to take the matter to court."
Also, when the government fails to respect the constitution.
"In the current situation, the schools have to develop a curriculum with the knowledge that one side has lawyers on the line, ready to sue over something -- anything they can think of -- if they don't get their way."
The school board has their own lawyers. It's a good thing- they've shown some ignorance concerning constitutional issues.
"Remember, we have the CRC on record saying as early as January 13, 2005: "Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis.""
Again, this was a case of city hall vs the little guy and city hall had already done an end-run around established procedures in order to minimize citizen comment. Someone had to do something to stop the freight train and get some public oversight. That's how we wound up with the vastly improved video now.
"I'm not making it up, it's a constant and real threat, and it does not make curriculum development any easier."
Not supposed to be easy. Constitutional rights of children need to be taken into consideration.
"To give you the feeling, maybe you've driven in traffic with a cop right behind you..."
That's not was this is like. CRC isn't in authority like a cop. This is more like following a cop around in Alabama 1960, making sure they're not abusing minority rights. It's dangerous but someone has to do it.
September 15, 2006 4:30 PM
Anonymous said:
"don't know if that's true but it doesn't matter who first used the term- it's a phenomena that needs to have a name"
Did you not hear? The term "ex-gay" is now being considered for the scrap pile of words no longer used. It's no "phenomena" either, unless of course you've fallen for the term's deceptive inferred definition.
Oh yes, If "ex-gays" are to be included, then "ex-ex-gays" must also be included. Funny, one would think "ex-straights" would be a logical step afterwards.
September 15, 2006 7:26 PM
Hobo said...
You guys really get some intelligent commenters at this site.
Anonymous said...
Yes Hobo, that's true. No village is complete without at least one idiot.
JimK
"Since there is really no such thing as an ex-gay person,"
says who?
Got any facts to back this up TTF?
No you don’t just keep telling the lie over and over and people will think it is true. I am guessing you think there are a lot of idiots around here.
September 17, 2006 11:43 AM
The proof is in the pudding.
When someone wants to sell a new medicine in this country, they must prove that the medicine is effective for what is claimed AND that it does no harm.
Rather than well designed experiments intended to assess success (or harm) of various attempts to alter sexual orientation, most of the data in this area comes from "self reports from psychoanalysts who are attempting to change their patients sexual orientation (and who are highly motivated to report "success")." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html
Some behavior modification "studies" that do exist in this area have problems in their experimental design. Most lack control groups. In many "success" is poorly and inconsistently defined. Often there is uncertainty of the actual sexual orientation of the subjects (gay/lesbian vs. bisexual) who agree to try change. The "Bibliography for Facts About Sexual Orientation" in the UCDavis paper cited above contains several studies with these and other design flaws.
If treatment programs designed to alter sexual orientation actually did what they claim, there should be well designed studies employing control groups with well defined variables and subjects that prove it but there aren't. After so many decades of research, the question is why can't anyone who works to change gays into straights prove their treatments are effective?
September 18, 2006 5:41 PM
how long will it take to cure cancer what if we gave up.
September 18, 2006 7:27 PM
"If treatment programs designed to alter sexual orientation actually did what they claim, there should be well designed studies employing control groups with well defined variables and subjects that prove it but there aren't. After so many decades of research, the question is why can't anyone who works to change gays into straights prove their treatments are effective?"
Well, first one would have to have some scientific evidence basis explaining why same gender sexual attraction rises above other types of fetishes and attractions to become something called an "orientation". None exists.
Secondly, one needs to concede that success doesn't mean that one is never tempted by these desires again but that a capacity for satisfying natural attraction is developed.
Thirdly, one would have to find an objective way to filter the subjective nature of the self-reporting that constitutes evidence.
Infinitely, we could go on. Suffice it to say, sexual libertarians have abused science as propaganda for their cause. Not the first time in history this ha happened.
September 19, 2006 5:10 AM
Anonymous said:
"Well, first one would have to have some scientific evidence basis explaining why same gender sexual attraction rises above other types of fetishes and attractions to become something called an 'orientation'. None exists."
In other words: homosexuals are just heterosexuals with a fetish for the same sex.
Anonymous said:
"Secondly, one needs to concede that success doesn't mean that one is never tempted by these desires again but that a capacity for satisfying natural attraction is developed.
General attraction to the opposite sex or attraction to one opposite sex partner after a period of time?
A gay male married a straight female (for business reasons), and they both knew of the situation and didn't intend to consummate the marriage. They ended up married for 14 years and had a very healthy sex life with a son to show it. The male said he was gay the entire time and the couple split for reasons unrelated to his sexuality. "Natural attraction" developed for that one female parter, but that didn't make him "ex-gay".
Anonymous said:
"Thirdly, one would have to find an objective way to filter the subjective nature of the self-reporting that constitutes evidence."
There are ways to measure sexual arousal, but not many choose to undertake it.
September 19, 2006 9:48 AM
"In other words: homosexuals are just heterosexuals with a fetish for the same sex."
That's right.
"General attraction to the opposite sex or attraction to one opposite sex partner after a period of time?
A gay male married a straight female (for business reasons), and they both knew of the situation and didn't intend to consummate the marriage. They ended up married for 14 years and had a very healthy sex life with a son to show it. The male said he was gay the entire time and the couple split for reasons unrelated to his sexuality. "Natural attraction" developed for that one female parter, but that didn't make him "ex-gay"."
I think this shows a capacity to function as either gay or straight. In other words, it's a choice.
September 19, 2006 10:50 PM
So if homosexuals are heterosexuals with a fetish for the same sex, how would you define bisexuals then?
Anonymous said:
"I think this shows a capacity to function as either gay or straight. In other words, it's a choice."
How one decides to behave and function is obviously a choice.
September 20, 2006 12:10 PM
"So if homosexuals are heterosexuals with a fetish for the same sex, how would you define bisexuals then?"
same way
"How one decides to behave and function is obviously a choice"
yes, and remember, your scenario also included a "healthy sex life" and "natural attraction" for a female
September 20, 2006 9:22 PM
So everyone is heterosexual then? How do you define heterosexual?
Anonymous said:
"... and remember, your scenario also included a "healthy sex life" and "natural attraction" for a female"
Yes, and the person was still gay the entire time. That wasn't his choice. He didn't change or become cured.
September 20, 2006 9:48 PM
"Anonymous said...
So everyone is heterosexual then? How do you define heterosexual?
Anonymous said:
"... and remember, your scenario also included a "healthy sex life" and "natural attraction" for a female"
Yes, and the person was still gay the entire time. That wasn't his choice. He didn't change or become cured."
So your definition of gay is anyone who has any same sex attraction? The guy has a an enjoyable and healthy sexual relationship with a female to which he's attracted. He has chosen not to be gay.
September 22, 2006 10:04 AM
Anonymous said:
"So your definition of gay is anyone who has any same sex attraction?"
It depends on whether it's exclusive and the persistence of the attraction. If one finds themselves continuously attracted exclusively to the same sex, how can they be heterosexual?
How do you define heterosexual?
Anonymous said:
"The guy has a an enjoyable and healthy sexual relationship with a female to which he's attracted. He has chosen not to be gay."
That depends entirely on how you choose to define "gay".
September 22, 2006 1:33 PM