Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Hurray for These Moms

Some Montgomery County moms showed the power of persistence when they discovered something that was just plain wrong in their kids' sex-ed curriculum (the one that the CRC recommends), and got the school district to change it.

The Gazette had it this morning, though we'd heard about it earlier:
The county school system is re-thinking its definition of sexual abstinence after complaints from two parents that their children were receiving incorrect and even risky information in sex ed classes.

Karen Sees and Cindy Richards said the "contraception comparison chart" used in eighth-grade health class at Herbert Hoover Middle School describes three types of abstinence: No intercourse, withdrawal (ejaculation outside of the body) and rhythm (no intercourse during ovulation).

"Since when did the term abstinence change to include the two most ineffective forms of birth control possible?" said Cindy Richards of Potomac. "Here we have been teaching our kids that abstinence means not having sex, period. What kind of message is this [chart] sending?"

Sees, also of Potomac, first became aware of the chart while helping her son study for health class in late October. She said she immediately e-mailed her son’s health education teacher about her concerns.

"I’m all for teaching sex education, but I want it to be accurate information," she said. "I was told by my son’s health teacher that withdrawal and rhythm are considered abstinence because [sexual partners] are refraining from what they want to do."

Both Planned Parenthood of Maryland and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington agreed with the parents that the definition was faulty. Parents slam sex ed material: Schools’ definition of abstinence undergoes review

Man, when you have the Catholic archdiocese agreeing with Planned Parenthood that something is screwed up -- you have definitely screwed up.
"Abstinence is when you’re not having sex, as simple as that," said Wendy Royalty of Planned Parenthood.

And Susan Gibbs, archdiocese spokeswoman, also suggested another correction for the chart.

"The use of the word ‘rhythm’ went out about 40 years ago when it was replaced with the term natural family planning," she said.

The MCPS chart dates back to the early 1990s, said Barbara Pearlman, MCPS coordinator for health education.

It lists a dozen methods of contraception with columns for how the method works, its effectiveness in preventing pregnancy, side effects, if it protects against sexually transmitted diseases and how it is obtained.

Each method falls under one of four categories: permanent (vasectomy), mechanical (condoms), chemical (birth control pills) or abstinence.

Yeah, if you talk to a kid about "abstinence," you really don't want to find out they were obeying you by withdrawing before ejaculation.

The story goes on -- it was not easy for these ladies to get these changes made:
Earlier this month, Richards and Sees began calling and e-mailing various school officials about their concerns.

Sees asked that more emphasis be placed on teaching students the pregnancy risk involved in withdrawal.

"I was told [by MCPS staff] that it’s too complicated to explain to kids that you could get pregnant [from withdrawal]. I said, ‘Too complicated? It’s one sentence, easily understood,’" Sees said.

Far more complicated was determining who within MCPS could authorize the change, she said.

"The [Hoover school staff] told me only the county could make that decision. Then the county [MCPS officials] told me they set the curriculum but have no control over how the schools implement it," Sees said.

But changes to the chart are in the works, said Brian Edwards, MCPS spokesman.

TeachTheFacts.org exists to support comprehensive, inclusive sex education in Montgomery County. A fine curriculum was introduced, with lots of improvements, but certain religious radicals were feelin' their Cheerios right after the 2004 elections and decided to try to throw out the school board and re-make the school district in their own image, using the new health classes as their lever to topple the status quo. They succeeded in wasting a lot of time and $36,000 in taxpayers' money, and delayed the new curriculum for a year.

This Gazette story points out something that should be part of any new curriculum, and that is that it needs to be extensible. These moms should have been able to submit a simple "trouble ticket" and have the district review it and act on it. They are clearly correct, this is no way to teach abstinence, and it needed to be changed immediately. But the schools and the district seem to have no real process for making adjustments.

Another thing that needs to be extensible is the condom video that was going to be part of the new curriculum. It was a great video, with tons of excellent information, but by the time it was due to be implemented, some of the information was out of date. The recommendation that spermicide be used, for instance, should be revised in light of recent findings that it can irritate the vaginal lining and increase the possibility of disease transmission. At our forum, one audience member pointed out a couple of other things that should have been included.

The CRC, and the Washington Times, opposed the video because it had a cucumber in it. They thought it was funny to talk about "veggie sex." That is the wrong approach, they just didn't like it because they didn't like it, and they complained about anything they could find. If they had suggested improvements, we could have moved forward in improving our kids' education, but no, they didn't want to improve it, they wanted to make fun of it and throw it out.

Sometimes people think of science as a set of facts. But that's not correct -- science is a way of improving knowledge, a way of learning, a process. That means it's always changing, and the new curriculum needs to allow for that. The current curriculum has been in place for fifteen years, unchanged, even though the world has changed a lot in that time, and medical and scientific knowledge have expanded amazingly. Look at how the status of gay people has changed in those fifteen years, look how many celebrities and leaders have come out and been accepted -- unthinkable, even a couple of decades ago. Look at the advances in genetics, in understanding the intricacies of our bodies and how they work, the changes in medicine that have resulted from that research, the advances in information technology and communication ... it's a different world now. It's changing, and as scientific knowledge changes, education needs to change along with it.

So we say, hurray to these moms who fought the system and won. And hurray to all the others who are fighting for a realistic curriculum for our Montgomery County students.

22 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man, Jim, the first half of this made me think "Wow, Jim going to put up something we can all agree on and create some good feelings for the holidays."

Fat chance, uh? Then we've got to go on with the attack on CRC (glad we finally got your true position on that). Then, it's off to the races implying that science has made a whole bunch o' discoveries about sexual orientation that we need to teach to kids. Nothing new's been discovered.

The story does show how incompetent MCPS is in implementing curriculm and how habitually resistant they are to constructive criticism. The story those mothers told about trying to get changes made was so instantly believable. Whatever curriculum is implemented needs to be detailed and there has to be a policy to prevent teachers from ad libbing.

November 23, 2005 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

The story does show how incompetent MCPS is in implementing curriculm and how habitually resistant they are to constructive criticism.

*************

CRC and company did anything but put forth constructive criticism.
That is why CRC and company are labeled homophobic bigots. Things they have done from day one have shown that. Open your eyes....

"anon free"

November 23, 2005 12:20 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, the CRC is not interested in improving the curriculum, they want to eliminate it. It is not a matter of moving the center of gravity toward the right, what they want to do is put the full weight of the health curriculum on the extreme end.

Also, we could re-word your suggestion that "there has to be a policy to prevent teachers from ad libbing." Isn't that just the same as saying "there has to be a policy to prevent teachers from teaching?" What do you want them to do, read a script? No, they have to interpret and adapt in the classroom. They need to know exactly what it is that they're trying to teach, and then use their skills to help the students understand. We would not support a scripted classroom lecture, as you suggest.

JimK

November 23, 2005 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim K said...We would not support a scripted classroom lecture, as you suggest.

***************

How correct you are when the script CRC and company want would say abstinence only and teachings about non-existent ex-gays among their other wacky ideas such as that homosexuals are nasty beings in their eyes and would corrupt all children. How many times have we heard CRC and company imply that the curriculum is an indoctrination program while
homosexuals are pedophiles and worse?

"anon free"

November 23, 2005 12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, the CRC is not interested in improving the curriculum, they want to eliminate it. It is not a matter of moving the center of gravity toward the right, what they want to do is put the full weight of the health curriculum on the extreme end."

You might want to try and see if you can go a week or so without mentioning CRC. Try and define yourself as more than the anti-Michelle Turner.

"Also, we could re-word your suggestion that "there has to be a policy to prevent teachers from ad libbing." Isn't that just the same as saying "there has to be a policy to prevent teachers from teaching?" What do you want them to do, read a script? No, they have to interpret and adapt in the classroom. They need to know exactly what it is that they're trying to teach, and then use their skills to help the students understand. We would not support a scripted classroom lecture, as you suggest."

Yes, you could reword my statement that way. The teachers of this county have repeatedly been shown to be irresponsible in their handling of this material. Probably, reading assignments with quizzes would be a better way to handle this and control disinformation in this area, which has life and death implications. If not, how would you protect kids from these "loose cannon" teachers?

November 23, 2005 1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said


You might want to try and see if you can go a week or so without mentioning CRC. Try and define yourself as more than the anti-Michelle Turner.

and

Yes, you could reword my statement that way. The teachers of this county have repeatedly been shown to be irresponsible in their handling of this material. Probably, reading assignments with quizzes would be a better way to handle this and control disinformation in this area, which has life and death implications. If not, how would you protect kids from these "loose cannon" teachers?


***********

Maybe because all Michelle has in life is CRC and since she herself lives and breathes it..why not mention CRC and company as the homophobic bigots they are? That describes Michelle Turner as well.

Well anonymous how would you feel if sex ed was not taught at all?

I think that is where you are heading.

"anon free"

November 23, 2005 1:15 PM  
Anonymous david.s. fishback said...

I agree with Jim.

If this error had been brought to the old CAC, I can assure everyone that we would have gone ballistic over it.

Let's all take a collective deep breath and enjoy Thanksgiving!

November 23, 2005 3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've no doubt you would have put a stop to it, David.

Have a good one.

November 23, 2005 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"anon free" writes...or rather should I say emotes,

Maybe because all Michelle has in life is CRC and since she herself lives and breathes it..why not mention CRC and company as the homophobic bigots they are? That describes Michelle Turner as well.

Well anonymous how would you feel if sex ed was not taught at all?

I think that is where you are heading.


If "anon free" and others that share his/her views want to be taken seriously in the public square they need to stop the name calling. What exactly is a "homophobic bigot" anyways? Would I be a "homophobic bigot" if I stated in this forum that the average life span of a homosexual male is 42 years? Yet, in so doing, I would be merely repeating FACTual information for which there is considerable substantiation.

As to the allegation that those of us that support an abstinence directed curriculum would rather have no sex education if we "can't get our way"...to be honest, even before I became interested and involved (here in Fort Collins, CO) in the "sex ed wars" I was of the mind that in-school instructional time was limited, and really ought to focus on the task at hand: education. Sex education curriculum battles are not about education per se; rather, they are about competing and colliding worldviews and socio-political agendas.

Here is a thought that just came to me...develop two curriculums, one that is comprehensive and another that is abstinence. Then put those curriculums online and require each student to log in and complete one or the other of these curriculums. Even add a parental unit or log in that would require the student to complete part of the online instructional material in the company of a parent/gaurdian. (I know this is possible as this is the way my 16 year old studied to get her "learner's permit" to drive).

The advantages of this approach would be many...not least among the advantages would be the instructional time that would be now available for working on the basics: reading, writing and math. This advantage becomes even clearer with the testing mandates of the NCLB Act. Another advantage to this approach would be that parents/guardians would actually have to be involved in the process of their child's sex education (be it comprehensive or abstinence) as an active participant, rather than a passive bystander, reduced to signing an opt-in or opt-out form. And most importantly, it could substantially reduce the conflict over what should be taught as sex ed and thus maintaining wide public support for our public schools.

Are there problems with this approach? LOL...I suspect there are no shortage of problems. But, would it not be worth it to explore a way out of what seems to be a never-ending conflict where nobody is happy with the result, no matter the time or effort towards compromise?

Just a thought...

Sincerely,

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

oryssman@hotmail.com

November 24, 2005 4:32 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Thanks for posting again, Orin.I believe we already have that kind of online choice here, as I know that at least a few students have taken such a course.

As to whether most high school students would choose to participate in sex-ed with their parents -- ROTFLOL.

The question of whether or not sex-ed should be taught developed back in the 50s when teenage pregnancy began to become a problem, as well as VD as it was called at the time. It was quite clear that parental education was not up to the challenge, so sex-ed was deeveloped.
It still isn't, so I believe we still need sex-ed, and I don't believe a small minority should dictate the issue. Should they have input, as they did on the CAC? Yes. Should their beliefs be determinative? No.

As for NCLB, I consider that a terrible waste of time and a distraction. But on this blog debating that issue would also be a distraction.

"Reading writing and math"? Sure, but there's more to high school than those three. And there are many on your side who don't seem to be too supportive of reading in general. More writing? Definitely. More math we are getting, at earlier ages as well.

The life span of gay men is not 42. I have no idea where you got that number, but I've heard it bandied about a lot from your side. Whatever the life expectancy is now, it has definitely been increasing over the past 15 years.

Michelle Turner, unfortunately, comes across as a homophobic bigot (except with regard to her gay cousin). That being said, not everyone who disagrees wih me must be doing so out of bigotry. But when people want to deny an entire group of people of their rights, and to legally permit discrimination against them as a group because of who they innately are, then that's bigotry.

November 24, 2005 5:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting again, Orin.I believe we already have that kind of online choice here, as I know that at least a few students have taken such a course.

Thanks for the compliment...and I am glad to hear that an online choice is available. Now perhaps such a choice ought to be expanded.

As to whether most high school students would choose to participate in sex-ed with their parents -- ROTFLOL.

Why this reaction? Though I disagreed with about half of her book, Sabrina Weill, the author of The Real Truth about Teens and Sex makes it clear that teens really DO want to hear it first from their parents (sorry, I can't find the page reference, but it is in the book...I was a bit surprised, yet felt "empowered" by such information).

The question of whether or not sex-ed should be taught developed back in the 50s when teenage pregnancy began to become a problem, as well as VD as it was called at the time. It was quite clear that parental education was not up to the challenge, so sex-ed was deeveloped.

Frankly I am not convinced...and see this more as an excuse and rationalization for political groups that have as much a vested interest in pushing American culture in one direction as Family Research Council and Focus on the Family do in the opposite direction. For anyone to posit that SIECUS and the Alan Guttmacher Institute are neutral parties in this educational dispute/controversy is to strain credulity to the breaking point.

It still isn't, so I believe we still need sex-ed, and I don't believe a small minority should dictate the issue. Should they have input, as they did on the CAC? Yes. Should their beliefs be determinative? No.

When the local county health department came into my 14 year-old's biology class, without my knowledge or consent and showed a video on human contraception they violated my rights as a parent to morally/ethically instruct and direct my children. And what did my daughter learn from such a video? She learned every method of birth control presently available. Oh, and she learned that "they really don't want us to het pregnant."

News Flash: put parents like myself in this situation enough times and public education will significantly lose the support they need, and frankly that I think they deserve.

As for NCLB, I consider that a terrible waste of time and a distraction. But on this blog debating that issue would also be a distraction.

No debate here...if I had my way it would be repealed immediately. I shudder to think what my education would have been like with teachers forced to worry themselves sick over getting test scores up.

"Reading writing and math"? Sure, but there's more to high school than those three. And there are many on your side who don't seem to be too supportive of reading in general.

Why I focus on those three is not that I am some kind of educational "fundamentalist" (though I think a some that frequent this forum might think differently), but rather because by any standard present day high school students, are not even mastering those basic skills. Is this the fault of the teachers? Might be in part, but it does not fully explain the problem. So, what is the problem? Too many distractions for students...

More writing? Definitely. More math we are getting, at earlier ages as well.

My high schooler brought home her school newspaper...the writing was so bad I could not figure out what the students were attempting to say...

The life span of gay men is not 42. I have no idea where you got that number, but I've heard it bandied about a lot from your side.

Then I would be interested in knowing what you base such an assertion on (friendly challenge here). As for me, if I recall clearly enough I first came across this figure while looking at Gabriel Rotello's Sexual ecology : AIDS and the destiny of gay men. I will need to double check this...

Whatever the life expectancy is now, it has definitely been increasing over the past 15 years.

Yes, it has, and at considerable cost to society...though I think the project is worth the effort. But is the effort genuinely appreciated?

The reason I ask this is because I have a subscription to and read The New Yorker magazine, and in an issue back in May of this year, I read an article that gives me pause. The article is online and can be found by going to the New Yorker here,
http://www.newyorker.com, and then search using the title of the article, HIGHER RISK and Michael Specter. And here is a particularly stunning admission (especially coming from a writer at what is clearly a magazine as much to the liberal side as The Atlantic is to the conservative side),

After years of living in constant fear of aids, many gay men have chosen to resume sexual practices that are almost guaranteed to make them sick.

Mind you, I did not come across this by reading some alert from the Heritage Foundation or some such similar group. I came across this because I have voracious appetite for good writing and a passion for reading.

Michelle Turner, unfortunately, comes across as a homophobic bigot (except with regard to her gay cousin).

What exactly is a "homophobic bigot" anyways? I mean our area recently played host to none other than Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, who protested the funeral of a soldier killed "defending fags" (his words). Clearly, Phelps is homophobic and a bigot, but that still leaves us without a working definition, not to mention interested groups that would like to use their definition in order to silence, censor if you will, debate this issue.

That being said, not everyone who disagrees with me must be doing so out of bigotry.

Phew! That's a relief...I think.

But when people want to deny an entire group of people of their rights, and to legally permit discrimination against them as a group because of who they innately are, then that's bigotry.

So, what you are saying is this...that if a small segment of American society wants to radically redefine (and do so by judical fiat, rather than thru the legislative process) an institution such as marriage, and based upon the assertion of innate characteristics (an assertion that while not false, is highly problematic), the majority
should say and do nothing?

Anyone care to answer that?

Sincerely,

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

oryssman@hotmail.com

November 25, 2005 12:35 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

There's a lot here, and I don't at this moment have the strength to respond to it all (I had some surgery two days ago). So I will start from the bottom.

First, I never said, nor do I believe anyone else on this blog ever said, that the definition of "homophobic bigtory" necessarily relates to the marriage debate. I don't believe that's a necessary association at all, and I agree the issue is much deeper than that. I believe I did lay out a definition -- that a bigot is someone who harbors a prejudice against a class of people based on some general fundamental group characteristic. Skin color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity. It has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. It has to do with dehumanizing a class of people, discriminating against them, bullying them, encouraging bullying, etc. It is always based on ignorance and often has religious roots. And it is not susceptible to reconsideration based on evidence.

As for the marriage debate, I don't consider marriage equality a radical redefinition. It's nothing compared to the evolution of marriage from an economic transaction of a patriarchal society completely divorced from love and desire to the institution as it exists today. That transition wasn't easy, but it happened, and I doubt there are many today who would argue to reverse it.

As for judicial fiat vs. legislative change, well, Vermont and Connecticut passed civil unions legislatively, and California passed marriage equality, which was blocked by executive fiat. How different was that to Massachusetts?

The bottom line re: marriage is that expanding it to include same-sex couples will enhance the institution, and have zero emotional or social impact on the vast majority of opposite-sex married couples. No one has made a rational case that will not be the result; there's just the usual "end-of-the-world" hysterics that have been the norm since the end of the Dark Ages.

As for "small segment," I think the latest polls show the breakdown 45 for, 55 against, overall. Not a small segment by any means. And when you get to people of marriageable age, which I think is considered 18-49 these days (leaves me out), you have a solid majority in support. It's just us old folks, set in our ways, who fight to the death to maintain a status quo that is not ours to maintain. And I see that in all the efforts to pass constitutional amendments -- laws are insufficient, the parents want to make it as difficult as possible for their children to reverse the law when they come to power. I find that understandable, as a parent, but very sad. What have we educated and reared our children for, if not to be able to decide for themselves when the time comes?

November 25, 2005 1:36 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

That "42 years" quote is from Paul Cameron, a religious extremist whose data is totally useless but has spread through the Christian fundamentalist community. As far as I can tell, there is no data on the life expectancy of HIV negative gay men, which is the critical number.

And, just to make it clear, I don't personally approve of any types of sexual behavior which increase the risk of serious disease, whether gay, straight or in-between. I want to minimize the incidence of HIV infection in all groups, from all causes, as well as Hepatitis A,B,C,D and E, syphilis, gonorrhea, HPV, etc. Those numbers of Paul Cameron were promoted simply to spread fear and hate, not for any public health purposes.

This is the best I could do from the scientific research:

Letter to the Editor
Gay life expectancy revisited
Robert S Hogg, Steffanie A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V O'shaughnessy, Julio Montaner and Martin T Schechter

British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Canada. E-mail: bobhogg@hivnet.ubc.ca

Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s.1 From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.4

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5 Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.

In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.

References

1 Hogg RS, Strathdee SA, Craib KJP, O'Shaughnessy MV, Montaner JSG, Schechter MT. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay men. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997;26(3):657–61.[Abstract]

2 Based on information obtained from the following three websites: http://www.frc.org/ie/important/important0400b.html, http://www.geocities.com/liberalwatch/showtime.htm, and http://www.tcyes.org/page2.html

3 Based on correspondence with Olli Stålström regarding use of our paper by some Finnish citizens to oppose a proposed to legalize civil unions between members of the same gender (website: http://www.finnqueer.net/juttu.cgi?s=80_10_1).

4 Hogg RS, O'Shaughnessy MV, Gataric N et al. Decline in deaths from AIDS due to new antiretrovirals (letter). Lancet 1997;349:1294.[ISI][Medline]

5 Gray A, Hogg RS. Mortality of Aboriginal Australians in Western New South Wales 1984–1987. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Health, 1989, p.61.

November 25, 2005 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana Beyer, M.D. writes,

The bottom line re: marriage is that expanding it to include same-sex couples will enhance the institution, and have zero emotional or social impact on the vast majority of opposite-sex married couples. No one has made a rational case that will not be the result; there's just the usual "end-of-the-world" hysterics that have been the norm since the end of the Dark Ages.

And how, with "marriage" extended to homosexual couples, will it be limited to them and heterosexual couples?

On what rational basis?

Ok, so you propose that we limit it to whatever any two consenting adults desire? Ok, that is fine...until you have a father that wants to divorce his wife and marry his adult daughter (since whatever any two consenting adults do ought to be of nobody's business). What then?

And to the best of my knowledge, sexual orientation is not considered to be an immutable characteristic. In fact, as I recall, sexual orientation is considered a continuum scale (0 to 7 I think), with a scale that runs from exclusively homosexual, say 7 to 0 which represents exclusively heterosexual. This conceptually explains the phenomenon of bisexuality, which would be represented as the middle of the scale continuum.

No one has made a rational case that will not be the result; there's just the usual "end-of-the-world" hysterics that have been the norm since the end of the Dark Ages

Oh, really? The rational case has been made by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Professor of Politics and Director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University (not to mention others). You can also find some info about him here,

http://www.bioethics.gov/about/george.html

as well as a chapter in the book, Same-Sex Matters: The Challenge of Homosexuality, edited by Christopher Wolfe (Professor of Political Science at Marquette University). I checked Amazon.com and you can pick up a gently used copy for $12, and that includes shipping.

While I have never attended Princeton or Marquette, I am under the impression that they are not exactly bastions of "end-of-the-world" hysterics that have been the norm since the end of the Dark Ages.

So, truth be told, the case has been made, but as the old saw, hackneyed and quite cliche ridden expression goes, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." - John Heywood (c.1497-1580)

Sincerely,

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

oryssman@hotmail.com

November 25, 2005 3:43 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

Don't get so testy!

Your "slippery-slope" argument is a straw man, and leads to Santorum's "man marrying dog " conclusion. Since there is no reason to believe the current system will lead to your listed dire consequences, why should expanding it to same-sex couples do so? Unless your point is that changing the institution in any way opens the door to a cascade of changes. One, there is no reason to believe that would happen, and, two, I've already pointed out how much the institution has already changed. What's another change that would encompass maybe 2% of the population ? Certainly changes in the divorce laws have been much more profound?

As for immutability, we've been arguing this here a long time. I daresay I've studied this in greater depth than you have, and one's innate desires ARE basically immutable. One's behavior is mutable. People don't move along the Kinsey continuum; they are who they are, and they might change their behavior for any number of reasons. The point we've all been trying to get across is that there is nothing inherently evil or wrong or immoral in being on the homosexual or bisexual side of the spectrum. If you guys could simply accept that, then most of these issues would melt away. But the Biblical mindset that recoils in selective horror at the sin of homosexuality is simply incapable, it appears, of doing so.

And the above has nothing to do with marriage.

As for George and Wolfe, no, I haven't read them, but I have read other rational arguments against. I just don't buy them. Why don't you just make some of the arguments and we can all jump in and discuss them? And the fact is that most of the arguments in the media happen to be hysterical arguments built on lies and misrepresentaions, such as the popular one that divorce in Scandinavia has been worsened by marriage equality. Only problem is that there is no marriage equality in Scandinavia. I think you would agree that none of the right-wing campaigns against marriage have been built on rational arguments?

I would welcome rational discussion.

November 25, 2005 6:20 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

"Why this reaction? Though I disagreed with about half of her book, Sabrina Weill, the author of The Real Truth about Teens and Sex makes it clear that teens really DO want to hear it first from their parents (sorry, I can't find the page reference, but it is in the book...I was a bit surprised, yet felt "empowered" by such information)."


I haven't read her book, but I tend to doubt most teens really do want to hear about this first from their parents. I've personally been fortunate that my boys have been open to discussions about most (but not all) topics sexual. Most of the questions are medically related, and I think I';m a little more qualified to speak on the issue than most parents. Considering how ignorant most Americans are about biology, I would go so far to say that most kids would be better off not talking to their parents about the nuts and bolts of sex-ed.

That being said, I would hope that most families would discuss the morality of sexual relationships, interpersonal behavior, communication skills, decency, compassion, empathy, etc. I hate to think that schools would be better at that than parents. But that is not the biology of sex-ed about which we are debating here.

I don't understand why you, as a parent, get so worked up about this. If what you teach your children about human biology matches what the school teaches, no problem. If it doesn't, then somebody got to fix the lesson. My sense is that you think that knowledge about contraception is going to encourage your children to have more sex than they would otherwise. The CRC has claimed this, as have Dobson et al. I believe the data does not show that to be the case. And, as I said above, it is your job to teach your children all about relationships. If they have sexual relationships it isn't the school's fault, or society's fault. It's just nature, natural law as the Catholics like to say. You can't create sexual beings at age 11-13 and then expect them not to act on their natural desires until they get married at thirty.

November 25, 2005 6:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana Beyer writes,

I don't understand why you, as a parent, get so worked up about this.

Since it is late here in Colorado and I have to drive down to Denver in the morning to pick up a car, this answer will have to suffice for now.

I get "worked up" over this issue for the same reason I suspect you get worked up about prayer or the Ten Commandment in the public schools, or Intelligent Design (which I oppose being taught as any sort of science equivalent), or any number of ways that so called right wing religious extremist attempt to influence public education.

I would be delighted to drop this as an issue...you leave your condoms at the school house door and I will leave my abstinence until marriage. Deal?

It's just nature, natural law as the Catholics like to say. You can't create sexual beings at age 11-13 and then expect them not to act on their natural desires until they get married at thirty.

"Create" you write? You can't be serious...thank you, I have gained greater clarity about the mission of Teach the "Facts" and it has more to do with assumptions about human nature and the development of character than it has to do with facts as you choose to call them.

Bottomline for me is this: I want my two daughters to learn about and develop good character. Such character is developed by way of discipline and self-control, not by learning how to use condoms to stop "sperm and germs". And just as I am certain you would not like it if I interferred with how you raised your children, I deeply resent any uninvited influence over my children.

I would welcome rational discussion.
Just as long as they happen to agree with your social and political opinions, no doubt.

Orin Ryssman

November 26, 2005 1:35 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

You HAVE become testy.

Did you not read what I wrote? "It's just nature, natural law as the Catholics like to say. You can't create sexual beings at age 11-13 and then expect them not to act on their natural desires until they get married at thirty."

Nature, or God, if you like, creates sexual human beings at age 11-13. That's a fact. You can try to stop it -- there are hormone blockers for that, but I will assume you're not interested in that approach.

So you do what I've done, and all my colleagues here as well, and I presume you and your neighbors and most parents -- you teach your kids morals and you try to build character.

Now, what will you do if one of your daughters comes home pregnant, or HIV positive? Wring your hands, rail at God, blame the schools, or maybe liberals? You know, as I pointed out, teens are sexual beings, and some times they have sex, and while they may hear our voices in the back of their minds, they will proceed anyway because they are driven to it. I'm aure they often mean well, and don't want to hurt themselves, each other, or us, but life doesn't work out the way we always want. Did you follow all your parents admonitions? If you did, then you're a better man than most.

The reality is that most kids are going to have sex, and our choice is to prepare them for it if they are going ahead, or just make believe everything will work out. Since it's pretty clear that all the social controls in place for the past four thousand years have not been effective, I think it's rational to try education. You know, that process that has made America a leader in science and technology?

Have you ever wondered why the Bibles are full of admonitions regarding sexuality? Do you think it's because those societies did not have the same problems we face? Or because they did? Human nature hasn't changed, and demanding that human beings delay sex until they're thirty is lunacy.

On a personal note, I don't think you'll find an example anywhere on this blog where I ran from a rational debate. I'm a scientist, and I've engaged in many such debates. I win some, and lose some. I still think you should make your best arguments. I've taken the time to spell out many things, and I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed comments. But I don't think it's fair for you to mention two books and expect me to go out and read them.

November 26, 2005 2:24 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

When you get a chance, I'd like you to answer a question. I think at times we all get too caught up in bigger philosophical issues, and maybe if we can focus on pragmatics a bit more we could make some progress. For instance, Throckmorton's presentation to the CRC and on his blog recently has a lot of material that looks pretty workable, so there should be a much greater opportunity now for a compromise.

You said that you want to teach your daughters about sex. Fair enough. What exactly have you (or do you plan) on teaching them? I know that most fathers have a problem with this, and I'm curious how you do it. Personal experiences can add up to useful data from which to draw larger conclusions.

So please let us know, specifically, with bullets, say, the issues you plan on covering and the facts and morals you are planning on transmitting.

Thanks.

November 26, 2005 11:19 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

The only statement I want to address is the idea that if gay couples could marry -we would then be open to incestuous marriages or animal- human ones. Why would any rational person think that?( I do not count Rick Santorum as rational). Orin has said he has gay friends who have loving relationships-I do too and family as well- so why would you compare gay relationships- and the possibility of these others

November 27, 2005 11:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orin emotes....Bottomline for me is this: I want my two daughters to learn about and develop good character. Such character is developed by way of discipline and self-control, not by learning how to use condoms to stop "sperm and germs". And just as I am certain you would not like it if I interferred with how you raised your children, I deeply resent any uninvited influence over my children.

***************

The opt out feature should work quite nicely for sex ed curriculum in this case if that is offered to your children and you want them to have no part of that.

But in case they do decide to have sex...they should know how to protect themselves.

"anon free"

November 27, 2005 7:52 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

You haven't answered my question, and I wasn't be facetious. I really want to know what it is you consdier important.

Obviously you believe it's your responsibility to instill character. So do I, as do all who blog here, from both sides. I don't doubt that for a minute.

But we're not talking about character. We're talking about biology. We're talking about sex. I would like to know what, in specifics, you instruct your children about sex. What do they get to learn from you about human sexual biology?

The answer may be, "Nothing." That's fine. But I wonder what it is about sex that gets you all flustered, and why you think that teaching people facts (which include the facts about pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases) is wrong. It seems to be a widely held belief on your side of the fence.

Biology is biology, whether it is taught by a liberal or a conservative. So please tell me what aspects of biology you would teach your children, and why, and maybe we can move this dialogue forward, instead of reverting to "I'll teach my kids, you'll teach yours" homilies.

November 28, 2005 8:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home