A Question. I Mean, Really
Hey, I have a question. Anybody know the answer here, or how to find out?
The "ex-gay" thing is going to be an issue as MCPS discusses a new curriculum. Some people are going to insist that the schools need to teach that you can stop being gay. They will say that there are thousands -- no, tens of thousands -- of people who have gone from being gay to being straight.
OK, so here's my question. How many people have gone from being straight to being gay?
We have seen a few news stories over the years. Some guy has a family, kids that prove he was, y'know, sexually active with his wife. And then he is identified looking for man-love on the Internet, or coming out of a gay bar, or some guy tells a reporter about their torrid affair.
It's a fairly common kind of story, and I have the idea there are a lot more of these than ones that go the other way, guys stopping being gay. But how many? Does anybody have any idea?
And ... does this straight-to-gay transition lend support to the "ex-gay" perspective, or undermine it? Does this mean that "change is possible," or were these guys gay to start with?
The underlying question, I guess, is -- if they teach about "ex-gays," shouldn't the schools teach about "ex-straights," too?
The "ex-gay" thing is going to be an issue as MCPS discusses a new curriculum. Some people are going to insist that the schools need to teach that you can stop being gay. They will say that there are thousands -- no, tens of thousands -- of people who have gone from being gay to being straight.
OK, so here's my question. How many people have gone from being straight to being gay?
We have seen a few news stories over the years. Some guy has a family, kids that prove he was, y'know, sexually active with his wife. And then he is identified looking for man-love on the Internet, or coming out of a gay bar, or some guy tells a reporter about their torrid affair.
It's a fairly common kind of story, and I have the idea there are a lot more of these than ones that go the other way, guys stopping being gay. But how many? Does anybody have any idea?
And ... does this straight-to-gay transition lend support to the "ex-gay" perspective, or undermine it? Does this mean that "change is possible," or were these guys gay to start with?
The underlying question, I guess, is -- if they teach about "ex-gays," shouldn't the schools teach about "ex-straights," too?
posted by JimK at 10:16 AM
271 Comments:
True conversion from gay to straight is virtually non-existant. Nicolosi, Executive Director of NARTH, uses the term "non-gay homosexual"; that is what "ex-gay" really means: a homosexual who doesn't "behave" like one, but still has same-sex attractions.
Introducing "ex-gays" to the curriculum will only lead to debate and confusion. If you want to be fair, you'll have to consider "ex-ex-gays" and all the stories that are attached with both terms (this includes all the types of therapies and the organisations that provide such therapies). There will have to be objective critical analysis of absolutely everything in order for there to be no bias. While we're at it, make sure to include everything over at queerbychoice.com (some of your "ex-straights") and analyse everything there too just to be fair.
Honestly now, you can't include anything like that in a curriculum; every "fact" would be based on anecdotal evidence. You can quote studies left and right (including the infamous Spitzer study), but if you were to really consider everything (which is only fair), you'll need to dedicate months and months of lessons just to provide the information. After that you'll need to start analysing all the material for flaws. Also don't forget new stories pop up all the time so it'll become an on-going thing.
Anyway, how much of above is suitable for a sex-ed curriculum? I'd say good luck even trying to get your head round all of it, let alone teach it to teenagers (in addition to all the real sex education).
The previous post illustrates why the original revised curriculum simply set forth basic facts as understood by the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations. Any mention of reparative therapy approaches -- not included in the original revised curriculum -- would have to include the statements of the American Medical Association, et al., condemning those approaches. My view is that since the discussion of sexual orientation is only a small part of the semester-long health education curriculum, it is not useful to get into that discussion in health classes, any more than it would be useful to have discussion of "Intelligent Design" in biology classes.
At bottom, virtually all (and perhaps all) proponents of reparative therapies base their arguments on their theological beliefs. Their "scientific" arguments are no more scientific than those presented by the Intelligent Design proponents, whose psuedo-scientific arguments were shredded in the Dover decision.
Theological disputation does not belong in health classes, which, as Ron Reagan, Jr., observed when interviewing Jim Kennedy and Peter Sprigg last year, are essentially science classes.
I've always assumed that the "straight to gay" phenomenon was nothing more than extreme repression.
Jim,
The only way to deal with this issue fairly is to distinguish between desire (biology) and behavior(sociology). Those men who had sex with women but then were looking for boyfriends were doing what gay men in America have been doing for at least a century -- trying to fit in, have a full life, and fulfill their sexual desire surreptitiously as best they could under the circumstances. What pains me is the deception of their wives and girlfriends, as effectively portrayed in "Brokeback Mountain." I don't doubt a gay man can love a woman, and I see nothing wrong with that as long as he's up front with her. My having been married to women didn't make me a man, and a gay man having sex with a woman doesn't make him heterosexual.
One can live forever a life of misery in cognitive dissonance between one's desires and one's behavior. One can even point to people who call themselves "true Christians" and then violate every cardinal principle of Christianity. Or look at Jack Abramoff, who styles himself as an orthodox Jew. We call that a "shonda," a terrible shame.
PFOX and groups like them consider a gay guy that is either celibate or who marries a woman to have become "ex-gay," right?
So has anybody ever collected any data on the number of men who, in their adolescence or early adulthood, dated or married women, and then switched to a homosexual orientation? It certainly seems relevant to the question that we know is going to come up.
The fact is, PFOX has a member on the MCPS citizens advisory committee. The whole reason he's there is to pressure the district to include teachings about "ex-gays."
It's going to come up.
JimK
Well, initially they (including the late, lamented Socarides) insisted that the conversion was real and included desire. The psych community by challenging them forced them to shift their rhetoric and now they (including Throckmorton) just say that gays can be helped through Jesus therapy to orient themselves towards women and become good husbands, but without losing their homosexual desire.
No, there are no numbers on this, or on many other basic issues because there is no money and no courage. They claim tens of thousands and can never produce more than a few dozen, which is pretty pathetic if being straight is so great that one would want to shout it from the mountaintops.
So, what should be taught? I prefer nothing, but if something has to said, I would say that fundamentalist-Christian-based therapy can help a very small number of men control their sexual impulses but that they are highly susceptible to recidivism. Similarly, straight men are highly susceptible to environmental stimuli, such as camping with other men in the Rockies or bunking with fellow inmates, and may participate in sex with other men but are very likely to prefer sex with women in the future.
Jim
An obituary in the Post in the past week was for a psychiatrist who disagreed with the 1973 APA decision, saying it was done for political/social reasons. Sounds like the same thing Cilly quoted a psychiatrist saying a couple of months ago. Anyway, this guy treated homosexuals and claimed a one-third success rate. Sounds like a good place to start if your inquiry is sincere and you have an open mind.
"The underlying question, I guess, is -- if they teach about "ex-gays," shouldn't the schools teach about "ex-straights," too?"
Why can't the schools teach the truth and say they don't know if sexual orientation is chosen and irresistable? The problem is that certain people have decided that having everyone endorse your sexual impulses is a civil right and they want to bolster their case by asserting that homosexuality has no element of choice. There is no support for this assertion.
Did it ever occur to you that anybody has the capacity to either "sexual orientation"? That everyone is in some sense "bi"? That the whole thing is not a "orientation" but a preference? It's the most logical explanation for the stuff you're talking about?
Anon
If you'd attended our forum you'd have seen some of this research. Of course anyone can, with a little friction and a little imagination, have "sex" with anyone or with any of various inanimate objects or, even, animals. Some people, especially some women, don't really have a strong preference in terms of the sex of their partner, but just want it to be somebody they like or feel aroused by. Not many guys feel that way, and I don't think it's all cultural taboo, either. But it is hard to find research that shows real bisexual men. Guys tend to be attracted to one or the other sex.
So the problem with your idea that it's just a preference, even though it would be "logical," as you say, is that ... not many people really feel that way, at least not male people. When you hit puberty or thereabout, some people in the environment get your attention, and some don't. Very few people report making a choice in the matter. I know I didn't, when I got to a certain age I just knew what I liked, and the other option never even occurred to me. I read where Jerry Falwell was saying he felt the same way, no choice in the matter.
JimK
"So the problem with your idea that it's just a preference, even though it would be "logical," as you say, is that ... So the problem with your idea that it's just a preference, even though it would be "logical," as you say, is that ... not many people really feel that way, at least not male people. , at least not male people."
Jim, show some consistency. You just said in your post that it's "fairly common" and now you're saying "... not many people really feel that way, at least not male people." I said it was the logical conclusion of the information you were posting. Are you saying it's common or not for someone straight to become gay?
Anonymous said...
Jim
An obituary in the Post in the past week was for a psychiatrist who disagreed with the 1973 APA decision, saying it was done for political/social reasons. Sounds like the same thing Cilly quoted a psychiatrist saying a couple of months ago. Anyway, this guy treated homosexuals and claimed a one-third success rate. Sounds like a good place to start if your inquiry is sincere and you have an open mind.
********************
December 28, 2005
http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/12/socarides_dies_1.html#more
Socarides Dies: A Grandfather of Reparative Therapy
Charles W. Socarides, a grandfather of the reparative therapy movement and co-founder of the antigay National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, died Dec. 25 in New York. He was 83 years old.
According to the New York Times, Socarides' books included "The Overt Homosexual" (Grune & Stratton, 1968) and "Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far -- A Psychoanalyst Answers 1,000 Questions About Causes and Cure and the Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society" (Adam Margrave Books, 1995). He helped form NARTH in 1992. According to a 1999 Human Rights Campaign brochure (see footnote 8), Socarides misrepresented the American Psychoanalytic Association's position on homosexuality in a published paper and court affidavit:
Charles Socarides has also run into trouble with the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), of which he is a member. According to a letter from Dr. Ralph Roughton of the APsaA, Socarides misrepresented the position of the APsaA in a published paper and a court affidavit. Socarides attempted to make it appear that the APsaA agrees with his positions on homosexuality. He did this by quoting an APsaA document written in 1968, which supported his views and which he called the "official position" of the APsaA, while ignoring a 1990 revised statement that drastically contradicted his views. The Executive Committee of the APsaA instructed the organization's attorney to write a letter to Socarides asking him to cease this misrepresentation and threatening legal action if he continued. Additionally, the APsaA newsletter decided to stop printing advertisements for NARTH meetings because the organization does not adhere to APsaA's policy of non-discrimination "and because their activities are demeaning to our members who are gay and lesbian," according to Roughton.
Socarides blamed homosexuality on the Freudian notion of absent fathers and attentive mothers. But he was a less than exemplary role model for fathers and for monogamous marriage; he was married four times, and his son Richard is an openly gay senior executive at New Line Cinema and former Clinton administration liaison on gay and lesbian issues.
The elder Socarides claimed to have helped 35 percent of his patients "become heterosexual" and to have helped additional gay patients reduce their sexual impulses. The Times does not explain or document Socarides' claim.
From the Times:
"Socarides outlived his time," Gilbert Herdt, an anthropologist who is the director of the National Sexuality Resource Center in San Francisco, said in a telephone interview yesterday. "He became a kind of anachronism, and a tragic one in the sense that he continued to inflict suffering on the lives of some gay and lesbian individuals and the L.G.B.T. community in general."
Of the relationship between Socarides and his gay son, the Times said:
In an interview yesterday, Richard Socarides said that he and his father managed to sustain a relationship, in part because both men refrained from discussing their work. "It was complex," he said. "We tried to relate to each other as father and son."
Does anyone know what the copyright laws in quoting passages from books ?
I would like to repeat here what is in my daughter's health text book.
The book is titled "Sex, Love and You" and does have a chapter on homosexuality.
The paragraph essentially says about homosexuality that we are really not sure what causes it, that it is probably a combination of factors including environmental, genetic, social, and science is not sure why some people end up having same sex desires. It then points out that most people are not homosexual, quotes a percentage of 1%, and then tells the kids if they think they are homosexual that not to worry about it, chances are that they are probably not (based on pure percentages).
Note this is in a context of a sex ed course that continually encourages abstinence until marriage, but also teaches all the types of birth control.
I read the chapter and was quite happy with how the topic was presented. And, after having followed a lot of the discussion here, I don't think there was really anything objectionable to even TTF folks in the introductory sections. A few of the following paragraphs had a discussion on how praticing homosexual behavior was a sin (this is a Catholic school textbook) - but the paragraphs that introduced the subject were really quite benign.
I am going to have to figure out where I put this book (it was her freshman text book).
Anyone know what the rules are on quoting ?
Anon, part of what I said is that people can have "sex" with ... nonoptimal partners. We have recently had a mayor in Spokane Washington, and I think a governor somewhere, maybe New Jersey, who, after years of marriage, were more or less outed practicing homosexuality.
I'm not sure a guy would throw away a marriage and a career on something that was just a preference. I have no doubt that people can have sex, even occasionally pleasurable sex, with a wide range of "partners," including their own hands, but everybody seems to agree that we have a tendency one way or the other, at least us guys.
Now, I don't find it impossible that some guys like both men and women, and just choose what's handy or what society approves of, though science has not found this to be a common experience. As you say, it's "logical," but it doesn't happen very often. It sounds like you might feel that way, I never did.
JimK
Like, here, what do you make of this?
Baptist leader accused of soliciting male prostitute.
How come you never hear it the other way? Where are the thousands of, I mean tens of thousands of gay guys that are going straight?
These straight-to-gay guys seem like they're everywhere. Gay-to-straight, you never can find.
I'd like to see those numbers.
Jim
Theresa
In the context of this discussion, I think it falls under the "fair use" doctrine. Am I right, David?
"How come you never hear it the other way? Where are the thousands of, I mean tens of thousands of gay guys that are going straight?"
Maybe because when it happens, no one considers it a scandal.
Thanks for the gay advocacy spin, Kay. Try reading the guy's books.
Theresa,
I am very sure that the kind of quoting you want to do falls under the "fair use" rule. To be sure you are being fair to the authors and publisher, I think you could list the title, publisher and primary author ("Green Eggs and Cholesterol: Dietary Guidelines for Preschoolers," Random Hut, T Diesel, et al.) in your first post, then you can just refer folks back to that post if they ask about your source. Frankly, I don't think you have to go quite that far, but it would provide almost the level of attribution required in any academic citaion.
I appreciate your concern for copyright and credit; we are so often able to bypass this step by just providing a link to the on-line source. This is especially easy with so many newspapers now publishing web editions.
What grade is this textbook written for? (she asked ungrammatically)
Anon,
Socarides, besides being another of the generation of Freudians whom your colleagues despise on all fronts except this one, is also one of the cohort of virulent homophobes who happened to make his own son gay, according to his theories. He believed that it was the father's relationship in the first few months after birth that determines a male child's sexuality (note never any discussion of girl's, but Freudians rarely bothered, since girls usually don't have penises).Of course, he provided no scientific way to test this, so like virutally all Freudian contributions, fundamentally the idea is useless.
But let's assume for a moment he is correct, and environmental influences (father-son relationship) in the first few months) is the critical issue. That means it's the father's fault, not the son's. It implies nothing about treatment, other than to fall into the same category as "biologically pre-natal" -- it can't be changed. Why would a believer then hound and shame the son for the father's sins (and don't give me a Biblical rationalization)?
And what would happen if his views on parenting were somehow to be tested, prospectively, and the kids turned out gay at the same rate as before? Would you accept the fact that he's wrong, and being gay is just fine? I doubt it.
Oh, his son turned out to be Clinton's LGBT liaison back in the 90's.
This was her freshman Catholic highschool text book. I don't know if they specified a recommended grade level or not. I will look for it this evening (I didn't leave it out, because I have a almost 10 and 12 year old that I didn't want reading it...).
Theresa
I am sure if there were many,many gay guys going straight- Knight, Spriggs and crew would have them on billboards, TV and the net.
Theresa wrote:
"Anyone know what the rules are on quoting ?"
I am sure that Tish is correct. Just quoting a paragraph from an entire textbook is certainly within the "fair use" rule. When you post the paragraph, could you please include the name of the author, the publisher, and the year of publication?
Theresa,
I'm curious. The textbook you describe used at a Catholic school seems pretty innocuous. Why don't you want your 10 and 12 year old reading it? Given what they get from their friends, online and from society at large, I would think you might even encourage them to read it. Of course, most parents have trouble talking about these issues, so I can understand your anxiety, but given the alternatives, it sounds like this textbook would be rather benign for your children, and far better than the alternatives considering your perspective.
Anonymous said...
Thanks for the gay advocacy spin, Kay. Try reading the guy's books.
_____________
No thanks... we will rely on you to quote from them in your "anti gay advocacy" spin.
"Of course, he provided no scientific way to test this, so like virutally all Freudian contributions, fundamentally the idea is useless."
Dana, the AMA and APA have provided no scientific way to test their assertions and you don't seem bothered. I only brought this up because Jim was again feigning ignorance about converted gays and this guy claimed many cases where he provided effective therapy.
Why do you feel so threatened by the idea of environmental influences? You can still push your misguided civil rights ideas. Science hasn't provided any evidence that orientation is biologically determined.
This guy claimed he "cured" gay people so it is true-but the AMA and APS are political so their stance is false. Who's got the spin here, Anon?
Look, Anon, for the past 100 years psychiatrists and psychologists have been trying to convert gay and trans persons. The literature is replete with all their attempts, from talk therapy to drug therapy to aversion therapy to electroshock and lobotomy. I read many of those studies when I was younger.
The reason the APA dropped homosexuality from the DSM was because of that history of failure. It was overwhelming, so for you to say there is no evidence is absolute nonsense.
The main human point you miss consistently is that people tried for decades and decades to change, went to psychiatrists for help, and could not be helped. They finally gave up, decided to just be themselves, and now they're tired of being told to change by people who simply don't get it, and don't want to get it.
What environmental influences are you talking about? I'm who I am because of an environmental influence, a toxin called DES, which was prescribed by my medical colleagues for 23 years to prevent miscarriage (18 years after it was proven not to work). But this toxin worked in utero, so it is both innate and environmental. Is that satisfactory for you? Or is all you really care about the nonsense about absent fathers and doting mothers?
Okay, so this from "Sex, Love and You"...making the right decision.
By Tom and Judy Lickona with William Boudrea, M.D.
Printed by Ave Maria Press, Inc out of Notre Dame, IN
copyrighted in 2003.
It also appears to have been approved by the Catholic church...
As I review it more, I really like this book. I will have to quote you a few of the chapters on contraception...
Some excerpts from the chapter on Homosexuality (thirteen):
They start by introducing Joe, a homosexual who has AIDS and stop sexual activity.
"Joe pointed out what the medical and behavioral sciences acknowledge : we don't fully understand what cuases a person to be sexually attracted to somone of the same sex. Genetic disposion, homones, family upbringing, peer experiences, and a person's sexual history are among the factors that may influence sexual orientation. How much influences any of these factor exerts may vary from person to person."
....
"Who is Homosexual?
Many people - especially adolescents - experience a time of confusion about their sexual identity. someone may fee attraction to a person of their own sex or have a person of their own sex demonstrate sexual feelings for them, and wonder, "Am I homosexual ?"
...
example of someone they know..
"Very few people are homosexual. You may have heard the statistic that "one out of ten people is gay or lesbian." That estimate turns out to be much too high and based on faulty research. Three recent sudies have found a much lower figure.
They cite 3 studies, 1 ) a Minnesota study that said 26% of 12-year olds said they were uncertain of their sexual orientation and then at 18, only 5% were unsure and 98% of those that said they were sure said they were heterosexual..2) the Guttmacher study and another study in France, both of which put the number at 1%.
More from Sex, Love and You...
"You may know people who tease, pick on, or are even violent to those they suspect to be homosexual. these behaviors are clearly wrong because they are not loving, respectful, or just.
May people, however, confuse respect with approval. They think that if you respect people who are gay or lesbian, you must also approve of their sexual lifestyle. This is a mistaken belief. Ethics requires us to respect people, not their actions. "
Okay, so this make the point that the Catholic faith holds that homosexual behavior is wrong, which clearly isn't going to fly in a public school. But I don't think you can make the statement that homosexual sex is just fine and dandy either, without starting to tread moral ground that you shouldn't be touching. Like the famous "baptist church is biblically misguided" impression that the judge believed the last curriculum implied.
Okay, moving on to the chapter on condoms... I will have to send this to Dr. Ruth as well..this is a far more reasonable treatment..
Wow -
Check this chapter out from sex, love and you :
Doesn't using a Condom make Sex Responsible ?
A great many young people have heard-and believed-the "safe sex" message. Condoms are promoted by the media and many public health and school programs as the way to pass unharmed through the minefield of premarital sex. Use a condom and you won't get pregnant. Use a condom and you won't get AIDS or other STDs.
Do the facts back up these claims? They don't as
Jenny’s story shows. The medical facts show that condoms educe the risk of pregnancy and AIDS but not to an acceptable level. A very significant risk remains. And con¬doms provide virtually no protection against some of the most common STDs like human papillomavirus and chlamydia.
Before we look at why that's true, we'd like to address a question you may be wondering about: If condoms don't make sex safe, how come so many people are promoting the "safe sex" message?
One reason is the pressure to "do something," particu¬larly about the spread of HIV/AIDS. The safe sex/condom campaign seems like a "quick fix." A Time magazine report summarized the dilemma:
In such a climate of fear, moral debate seemed like a lux¬ury. Get them the information, give them the protection. We can talk about morality later. There is a fishbowl full of condoms in the nurse's office, help yourself.
We've asked people who promote the condom "solution" to teen pregnancy and STDs :
. "Do you really believe
that condoms make sex safe?"
One person answered: "No, there are still risks. But most teenagers are going to continue to have sex no matter what we adults say, and condoms are safer than using no protection at all. We're afraid that if we emphasize the risks of condoms, kids might not use them."
"Is this logical reasoning? It is undeniably true that many young people will continue to have sex no matter what anybody tells them about the dangers-just as a lot of young people will continue to do drugs or drive while drinking despite the well-known dangers of those behav¬iors.
But is that any reason to withhold from everyone accu¬rate information about the dangers of premarital sex, even when you're using a condom? Obviously not.
So let's look at the real risks that are still present even if sexually active singles use so-called "protection."
0'l~ Condoms and Pregnancy
You can use a condom and still get pregnant. A variety of studies find that condoms have an annual failure rate in preventing pregnancy of 10 to 30%.
"Annual failure rate" means that, if you are using a condom to try to prevent pregnancy, in the course of just one year you have at least a 10% chance of getting pregnant. One study found a 36% pregnancy failure rate among teenagers, who tend to make more mistakes than older per¬sons in using condoms.3
For any condom user, the chance of eventually getting pregnant goes up steadily if the user continues to rely on a condom for contraception year after year. One medical journal estimated that a girl who begins having sexual intercourse at age 14 and relies on a condom for protection has a 50% chance of getting pregnant before she graduates from high school.
The fact that a young woman can still get pregnant even when using a condom is pretty interesting when you con¬sider that a woman is fertile-able to conceive-only a few days out of her entire menstrual cycle. How is it possible for pregnancy to happen at these rates for couples who have sex with a condom?
First of all, there's human error. Teenagers aren't the only ones who don't always use condoms correctly. Sexual excitement
or the influence of alcohol often interferes with correct usage. There's a big difference between laboratory studies of condom effectiveness (using fluid-filled condoms to simulate real conditions) and real-life sexual encounters involving less-than-perfect human beings.
Besides "user failure," there is also "product failure."
Condoms sometimes have holes. The sperm can get through a hole.
Pregnancy may also occur when a condom slips off or breaks during intercourse. A study by Dr. James Trussel, reported in Family Planning Perspectives found that con¬doms slipped off or broke 8% of the time during vaginal intercourse-regardless of the condom brand, the use of additional lubricant, or people's past experience in using condoms.
I nteresti ngly, several stud ies have shown that high schools that have distributed condoms to their students have generally not been successful in reducing student pregnancies (even advocates of condom distribution have admitted this fact). In some cases the pregnancy rate has actually gone up. "
It goes on citing study after study after study - and pointing out that the effective rates of protecting kids from STD transmission are even less.
Pretty frightening stuff when we consider what the old curriculum thought was okay to teach "99% effective".
Dana -
I didn't leave the book out because my almost ten year old still does not know what sex is (I have not told him, and he has not heard it on the playground yet).
he does know the finger gesture for sex (courtesy of my 15 year old), but doesn't understand what the finger gesture means.
He knows sex makes babies, that it involves a man and a woman, and that is about it.
I don't think he needs to know this yet. And I am going to chance that he won't hear it discussed on the playground and he is certainly not allowed to watch any tv or movies where it might be shown or implied.
He is very excited about turning 10 and if he asks again I will tell him - I promised I would tell him when he is 10. we will see how quickly he remembers to ask.
theresa
Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?"
JimK
The Catholic school health education book says, "And con¬doms provide virtually no protection against some of the most common STDs like human papillomavirus and chlamydia."
This statement is inaccurate according to the CDC. Here's what the CDC, under the George W. Bush administration, says about condoms, HPV, and chlamydia.
"While the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease."
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
"Latex male condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of transmission of chlamydia."
http://www.cdc.gov/std/chlamydia/STDFact-Chlamydia.htm
Christine
"Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?""
sexual activity between two or more members of the same gender
"The reason the APA dropped homosexuality from the DSM was because of that history of failure."
I hope this is just a faux pas on your part, Dana. DSM should list disorders not just treatable disorders. The truth is modern psychiatry has not had much success treating many mental disorders.
Sorry, Anon, it was not a faux pas. It was not simply because it was resistant to treatment. The resistance to treatment forced clinicians to finally repsect and listen to their patients. In so doing they questioned their faulty assumptions and recognized that classifying a normal human sexual behavior, let alone a form of innate sexual desire, as a disease was wrong.
An analogy would be the treat for duodenal ulcers when I was in medical school, and the treatment today. Doctors thought they were caused by stress, so they tried to reduce stress. When they were finally able to believe their eyes and the research that they were bacterial infections (it took about twenty years for that to sink in), they began treating the infection and curing the disease. But had they never challenged their assumptions they could not have done so.
Theresa,
Thak you for your postings. They give us something with which to work in a calm and rational manner (so far). And thanks for answering my question.
However, you just mentioned your ten year old. How about the twelve year old?
I'll get into the specifics later.
More pretty frightening stuff. I can see why Ruth was more horrified than the rest of us by the video now.
Sex Love and You.
"But even when condoms do remain on and intact, they provide considerably less protection against sexually trans¬mitted disease than they do against pregnancy. Why is that so?
The first reason is this: Whereas a girl can get pregnant only at ovulation time (two to three days each month), a sexually transmitted disease can be passed on from partner to partner at any time of the month.
A second reason is an extremely important fact that is not emphasized nearly enough by sex educators: a condom covers only a portion of the genital area that is contacted during intercourse. A female's pubic area and vulva are not covered by the condom. Neither are a male's pubic area and scrotum.
That's a problem, because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillo¬mavirus, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.
So, even if the virus or bacteria don't get through the condom itself, you can still get a disease because the con¬dom isn't covering enough of your genital region to prevent infection during sexual contact.
A third hazard: After intercourse, various potentially infectious sexual fluids are on both sides of the condom. As the condom is removed, these potentially contaminated fluids can be transmitted between partners.
Medical studies show that for all these reasons, con¬doms provide little or no protection against several of the STOs that are a danger to your health and your ability to bear children.
Condoms and HIV / AIDS
The threat of becoming infected with the deadly AIDS virus is often used as the justification for encouraging people to practice !!safe" or !!condom-protected" sex. But condoms do not provide adequate protection against HIV/AIDS.
In one study, the University of Miami Medical School monitored couples where one partner was HIV-infected. Within 18 months, among those couples that continued to have intercourse using a condom, 17% (3 people out of 18) of the previously uninfected partners had contracted the AIDS virus.
None of those who abstained from intercourse became infected.
In 1993 the University of Texas analyzed the results of 11 different studies that had tracked the effectiveness of condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. The average condom failure rate in the 11 studies for preventing transmission of the AIDS virus was 31 %. 5
You might ask yourself: Would I fly on an airline whose planes fatally crashed 31 % of the time?
A 2000 study by the National Institutes of Health found that condoms were between 49% and 100% effective in preventing the spread of gonorrhea in men, but no effect was found for women. Also, the study found that serious diseases like chlamydia, chancroid, trichomoniasis, syphilis, and genital herpes showed no reduction with con¬dom use. These diseases also increase the risk of contract¬ing HIV.6
Why do condoms sometimes fail to prevent transmis¬sion of the AIDS virus? A clue was offered by two Canadian researchers at the 1990 World Health Organization confer¬ence on AIDS. Drs. Richard Gordon and Natalie Bjorklund of the University of Manitoba presented a study with this unusual title: !!If Semen Were Red: The Flow of Red Dye from the Tips of Condoms During Intercourse and Its Consequences for the AIDS Epidemic."
The study consisted of placing nontoxic red dye in the tips of condoms prior to their being used in sexual inter¬course. The researchers were able to determine that during intercourse, drops of this red dye were pushed up to the rim (open end) of the condom. They concluded that !!Ieakage over the rim may be a major source of condom failure." 7
But even when condoms do remain on and intact, they provide considerably less protection against sexually trans¬mitted disease than they do against pregnancy. Why is that so?
The first reason is this: Whereas a girl can get pregnant only at ovulation time (two to three days each month), a sexually transmitted disease can be passed on from partner to partner at any time of the month.
A second reason is an extremely important fact that is not emphasized nearly enough by sex educators: a condom covers only a portion of the genital area that is contacted during intercourse. A female's pubic area and vulva are not covered by the condom. Neither are a male's pubic area and scrotum.
That's a problem, because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillo¬mavirus, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.
So, even if the virus or bacteria don't get through the condom itself, you can still get a disease because the con¬dom isn't covering enough of your genital region to prevent infection during sexual contact.
A third hazard: After intercourse, various potentially infectious sexual fluids are on both sides of the condom. As the condom is removed, these potentially contaminated fluids can be transmitted between partners.
Medical studies show that for all these reasons, con¬doms provide little or no protection against several of the STOs that are a danger to your health and your ability to bear children. "
"recognized that classifying a normal human sexual behavior, let alone a form of innate sexual desire, as a disease was wrong."
Dana
Do you feel all sexual desires are innate or only gender preferences? What I mean is, if say a person is attracted to animals or chains, is that innate or would it be acquired?
Dana -
I did not choose to tell my now twelve year old what sex was until she was almost eleven.
My then 14 year daughter realized the almost eleven year old daughter still didn't know and insisted I tell her.
I don't remember how much she asked about sex before that. I would have taken the same position I did with my son - you don't need to know that yet.
She is really not asking detailed questions about this yet. I don't see the need to broach a subject and educate her on things that aren't important to her yet and I feel she is too young for. Entirely different story with the 15 year old, clearly - who asks about everything and I think I have a pretty open relationship with.
But the 15 year didn't really start asking a lot of questions until late 7th early 8th grade.
So leaving out a book that might provoke questions and issues I really would rather she didn't start mulling yet is something I wouldn't do.
Ok - so I really have to start working now. I will check back later this evening....
"They give us something with which to work in a calm and rational manner (so far)."
Dana,
I think you'd have this experience a lot more if you'd encourage the TTF President to stop calling people names. Is that all part of the GLAAD strategic plan for your organization?
Theresa said...
"More pretty frightening stuff. I can see why Ruth was more horrified than the rest of us by the video now."
In referring to "Dr. Ruth" this is an understatement. "Dr. Ruth" came off as a nut trying her best to get on new CAC.
I mean swirlies and all.......
I asked, Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?"
And Anon "answered," sexual activity between two or more members of the same gender
OK, so somebody help me out here. That answer of course is not clear at all. Let me list some things, you tell me if they are "homosexual behavior" or not, OK? (Here I am just referring to males, I'm afraid the lesbian thing is going to be even harder to pin down.) I think we'll agree that a guy putting his penis in the anus or mouth of another man is "homosexual behavior" on both people's part.
How about this: walking down the street holding hands with a guy? Homosexual behavior, or not? How about open-mouth kissing another guy? Does that count? How about flouncing through the grocery store in a fuschia gauze blouse tied at the waist, with teal harem pants and a saffron sash? Homosexual behavior? How about a guy wiggling his butt when he knows another guy is walking behind him? How about smiling and winking at a stranger who seems gay, and starting a conversation with them? How about putting on a wig and eye makeup and lip-synching to Barbra Streisand songs in front of the mirror? What about wearing silk hose and a garter belt under your business suit, and giggling to yourself all day because nobody knows? Is that acceptable, or is that "homosexual behavior?"
How about curling up on the sofa with your best friend, cuddling and eating popcorn and stroking one another's half-naked bodies while you watch old musicals on TV? Homosexual behavior? (It doesn't seem to be, by Anon's definition.)
Or do you only mean behaviors that result in ejaculation of semen into the mouth or anus of another person of the same sex? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but it doesn't really seem like that's the issue.
JimK
Those CDC Fact Sheets haven't been updated since May 2004.
Another result of all those tax cuts apparently.
Theresa,
Thank you for providing us with this information. It is good to hear from rational - if different- viewpoints and certainly to be able to read what is in other texts and what other kids are learning.
I have to tell you though- when you ended one message- you said I have to send this to Dr. Ruth- and I was shocked. I was thinking of Ruth Westheimer as she was a part of the focus of a TV show about the 80's last week-I gather you meant Ruth Jacobs. But you had me going for a bit!
"I asked, Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?"
And Anon "answered," sexual activity between two or more members of the same gender
OK, so somebody help me out here. That answer of course is not clear at all. Let me list some things, you tell me if they are "homosexual behavior" or not, OK? (Here I am just referring to males, I'm afraid the lesbian thing is going to be even harder to pin down.) I think we'll agree that a guy putting his penis in the anus or mouth of another man is "homosexual behavior" on both people's part.
How about this: walking down the street holding hands with a guy? Homosexual behavior, or not? How about open-mouth kissing another guy? Does that count? How about flouncing through the grocery store in a fuschia gauze blouse tied at the waist, with teal harem pants and a saffron sash? Homosexual behavior? How about a guy wiggling his butt when he knows another guy is walking behind him? How about smiling and winking at a stranger who seems gay, and starting a conversation with them? How about putting on a wig and eye makeup and lip-synching to Barbra Streisand songs in front of the mirror? What about wearing silk hose and a garter belt under your business suit, and giggling to yourself all day because nobody knows? Is that acceptable, or is that "homosexual behavior?"
How about curling up on the sofa with your best friend, cuddling and eating popcorn and stroking one another's half-naked bodies while you watch old musicals on TV? Homosexual behavior? (It doesn't seem to be, by Anon's definition.)
Or do you only mean behaviors that result in ejaculation of semen into the mouth or anus of another person of the same sex? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but it doesn't really seem like that's the issue.
JimK"
Obviously, the term can have different meanings. I think if you were talking about the textbook that Theresa quoted, from the context it was written, I think it was just talking about sexual behavior. You could also mean homosexual behavior as in behavior that those engage in homosexual activity also commonly engage in. If you want us to say something so you can get to a punchline, why don't you just tell us what you want us to say.
"Theresa,
Thank you for providing us with this information. It is good to hear from rational - if different- viewpoints and certainly to be able to read what is in other texts and what other kids are learning."
Theresa's magnanimity truly is remarkable considering that the last time she shared something here, a couple of you were ranting at her and calling her a liar. Quite the saint, I'd asy.
... so you can get to a punchline...
I already delivered the punchline. I don't think this is really about ejaculation into orifices. And neither do you, apparently, judging from your answer.
JimK
Anonymous said...
"Theresa's magnanimity truly is remarkable considering that the last time she shared something here, a couple of you were ranting at her and calling her a liar. Quite the saint, I'd asy."
Tilden PTSA members and MCCPTA members would have more to say that ejecting her to sainthood over that directory issue.
A few points off the top:
1) I wasn't suggesting that Theresa should sit down with her ten or twelve year old and talk about sex, though I wouldn't have a problem with that in general.It depends on the child.I was only surprised that she was so concerned to get that book out of sight. I think many of us have had the experience that when we try very hard to hide something we end up making it far more tempting. Somehow those books get found.
2) Anon defines homosexual activity as being between two or more members of the same gender. Putting aside Jim's comments, what is with the "or more"? Is heterosexual behavior that which occurs between a man and two or more women, and vice versa? This "or more" addition smacks of the nonsense being promulgated by Stanley Kurtz these days, that same sex marriage will somehow lead to polyamory.
3)The Catholics might want to believe the numbers for gays and lesbians total no more than 1%. Firstly, if they did, I don't think there would be any discussion here. You need a critical mass, and I don't believe 1% cuts it. I also don't believe the 10% number that was prevalent decades ago. But it all depends on your definition, and we've not resolved that at any level of society.
Are you gay if you've ever had any kind of sexual contact with a member of the same sex? Then the numbers are probably 20% or more, since kids experiment all the time. What qualifies as sexual contact, as Jim described? Is a single experience enough to make you gay forever? How about fantasies? Persistent fantasies can certainly make you a homophobe or a professional anti-gay preacher or politician.
As long as we can't agree on a definition, we're going to be at each other's throats.
4) STIs -- there is a great deal of misinformation in this text. It begs the point -- if you use a condom improperly, you're at risk. Period. That holds for gays and straights, vaginal, anal or oral penetration. The point of the video is to make it much less likely for that to happen.
HPV is not a sexually transmitted disease; most humans have had it by the time they reach puberty. And the new vaccine will prevent the complications. And the only persons at risk will be Christian fundamentalists who refuse their children permission to obtain it, because they don't trust their kids. I wonder why?
Syphilis rarely causes sores anywhere but the penis.
You might get some kids to stop just short of vaginal intercourse, but you're not going to prevent sex. Get past that. It has never happened, and it never will. Abstinence class won't succeed, fire and brimstone won't succeed, STDs won't succeed. And, of course, all this abstinence empahsis has done has moved penetration from the vagina to the mouth and anus, Dr. Ruth's favorite orifice.
As for the question about all sexual desire being innate, such as desire for animals and chains (do those go together, outside an abbatoir?): I have no idea. Speaking from a biological and evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that one's sexual identity and sexual orientation would be innate (by which I include the immediate post-natal period, at least in other animals). Beyond that, how those desires manifest in the society in question will probably be a complex mix of culture and biology. Humans have become very adept at all types of sexual behavior. We can only speculate as to the reasons and the mechanisms. Bonobos are pretty good at it as well. So since it really hasn't been studied, I can't answer that. All I can say is that western monotheists have always frowned on anything but plain vanilla heterosex, and that was picked up by psychiatry and psychoanalysis. But they only had their bias, and very little data. Until the extremists are removed from goivernment I don't expect there will be any money to fund any research on sexual behavior. Just look at the extremist attacks on Kinsey over the past few years. Those people are afraid of the research, because they fear the answers.
"I already delivered the punchline. I don't think this is really about ejaculation into orifices. And neither do you, apparently, judging from your answer."
Any idea what it is really about?
"Of course anyone can, with a little friction and a little imagination, have "sex" with anyone or with any of various inanimate objects or, even, animals."
So, Jim, you concede that anyone can have "sex" with any partner they choose?
What you can calling "gay" is simply someone who prefers to do it with someone of the opposite gender, then. Pleasure is not the issue because, obviously, for a guy to do this, it would be required to get in the proper frame of mind.
Gender preference is a moral choice and an aesthetic choice. Biology determines sex drive. It doesn't determine preference of the circumstances.
So bizarre that we would even think to protect people from discrimination based on what they prefer. Or that we would seek to tell kids, do whatever impulse strikes you. Kids should be taught how to have a happy and healthy life.
"Tilden PTSA members and MCCPTA members would have more to say that ejecting her to sainthood over that directory issue."
I thought Theresa's kids were in Catholic school. Are you saying the PTA kicked her out?
"Anon, part of what I said is that people can have "sex" with ... nonoptimal partners. We have recently had a mayor in Spokane Washington, and I think a governor somewhere, maybe New Jersey, who, after years of marriage, were more or less outed practicing homosexuality."
They were outed abusing their offices. It's not uncommon for married men to become restless. For some of them, gay sex has an attraction because there are some ways in which it's easier to engage in.
"I'm not sure a guy would throw away a marriage and a career on something that was just a preference."
Oh brother.
"I have no doubt that people can have sex, even occasionally pleasurable sex, with a wide range of "partners," including their own hands, but everybody seems to agree that we have a tendency one way or the other, at least us guys."
So then, it's not an orientation but a preference.
"Now, I don't find it impossible that some guys like both men and women, and just choose what's handy or what society approves of, though science has not found this to be a common experience."
Science has not come to any conclusion here.
"As you say, it's "logical," but it doesn't happen very often. It sounds like you might feel that way, I never did."
This is the whole point, Jim. Any research in this area is never really valid. It's based on feelings. Only the subject knows if they're telling the truth. You guys rely on this truth to attack the Spitzer study but ignore it if any findings go your way. We need to tell kids the truth about this stuff. The truth is we don't know what causes people to feel the way they do.
Anonymous said...
"I thought Theresa's kids were in Catholic school. Are you saying the PTA kicked her out?"
hmmm the word misconstrual comes to mind for this anon
"Anon defines homosexual activity as being between two or more members of the same gender. Putting aside Jim's comments, what is with the "or more"? Is heterosexual behavior that which occurs between a man and two or more women, and vice versa? This "or more" addition smacks of the nonsense being promulgated by Stanley Kurtz these days, that same sex marriage will somehow lead to polyamory."
I didn't mean to imply that, Dana, but I do think there is a legitimate point that multiple partners is much more common, practically ubiquitous, among gay men.
"The Catholics might want to believe the numbers for gays and lesbians total no more than 1%. Firstly, if they did, I don't think there would be any discussion here. You need a critical mass, and I don't believe 1% cuts it. I also don't believe the 10% number that was prevalent decades ago. But it all depends on your definition, and we've not resolved that at any level of society."
You're right. Indeed, if you define it as someone with innate attraction to the opposite gender, I think that would 0% of the population.
"Are you gay if you've ever had any kind of sexual contact with a member of the same sex? Then the numbers are probably 20% or more, since kids experiment all the time. What qualifies as sexual contact, as Jim described? Is a single experience enough to make you gay forever? How about fantasies? Persistent fantasies can certainly make you a homophobe or a professional anti-gay preacher or politician."
Fascinating.
"As long as we can't agree on a definition, we're going to be at each other's throats."
I think this whole throat thing is in your imagination.
"STIs -- there is a great deal of misinformation in this text. It begs the point -- if you use a condom improperly, you're at risk. Period. That holds for gays and straights, vaginal, anal or oral penetration. The point of the video is to make it much less likely for that to happen.
HPV is not a sexually transmitted disease; most humans have had it by the time they reach puberty. And the new vaccine will prevent the complications. And the only persons at risk will be Christian fundamentalists who refuse their children permission to obtain it, because they don't trust their kids. I wonder why?
Syphilis rarely causes sores anywhere but the penis.
You might get some kids to stop just short of vaginal intercourse, but you're not going to prevent sex. Get past that. It has never happened, and it never will. Abstinence class won't succeed, fire and brimstone won't succeed, STDs won't succeed. And, of course, all this abstinence empahsis has done has moved penetration from the vagina to the mouth and anus, Dr. Ruth's favorite orifice."
Guess what else doesn't work? Condom training. The best way to protect kids would be to sustain a society where extra-marital sexual activity is considered wrong. It won't be 100% effective but will, in the long run, save lives.
"As for the question about all sexual desire being innate, such as desire for animals and chains (do those go together, outside an abbatoir?): I have no idea. Speaking from a biological and evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that one's sexual identity and sexual orientation would be innate (by which I include the immediate post-natal period, at least in other animals). Beyond that, how those desires manifest in the society in question will probably be a complex mix of culture and biology. Humans have become very adept at all types of sexual behavior. We can only speculate as to the reasons and the mechanisms. Bonobos are pretty good at it as well. So since it really hasn't been studied, I can't answer that."
Hence, the "no choice" argument is a bunch of propaganda.
"All I can say is that western monotheists have always frowned on anything but plain vanilla heterosex, and that was picked up by psychiatry and psychoanalysis. But they only had their bias, and very little data. Until the extremists are removed from goivernment I don't expect there will be any money to fund any research on sexual behavior. Just look at the extremist attacks on Kinsey over the past few years. Those people are afraid of the research, because they fear the answers."
Right now, people can't do any research that would possibly diverge from the APA or AMA party line or they face censure. There is no academic freedom here. Traditional morality is extremism to you. Maybe you're the extremist.
"hmmm the word misconstrual comes to mind for this anon"
maybe it was bad grammar on your part-
what were you trying to say earlier?
"Right now, people can't do any research that would possibly diverge from the APA or AMA party line or they face censure. There is no academic freedom here."
Proof of this anonymous or just a blanket statement??????????
"maybe it was bad grammar on your part-"
This anon sidestepping the issue of course.
"Proof of this anonymous or just a blanket statement??????????"
You think I'm wrong?
"This anon sidestepping the issue of course."
Sidestepping what? I thought that's what you said. If you didn't mean that, I'm fine with that too. Just say what you mean.
"Tilden PTSA members and MCCPTA members would have more to say that ejecting her to sainthood over that directory issue."
Can anyone translate this for me?
"Can anyone translate this for me?"
Don't speak, imbecile, man.
Surfer Rameses
THANK YOU, THERESA, FOR SHARING THE EXCERPTS FROM THE BOOK FROM AVE MARIA PRESS. THE EXCERPTS APPEAR TO BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS EXPRESSED TO ME A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO BY THE ARCHDIOCESES’S REPRESENTATION ON THE OLD CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
I DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS, WHICH FOLLOW WHAT THERESA PROVIDED:
Some excerpts from the chapter on Homosexuality (thirteen):
They start by introducing Joe, a homosexual who has AIDS and stop sexual activity.
"Joe pointed out what the medical and behavioral sciences acknowledge : we don't fully understand what cuases a person to be sexually attracted to somone of the same sex. Genetic disposion, homones, family upbringing, peer experiences, and a person's sexual history are among the factors that may influence sexual orientation. How much influences any of these factor exerts may vary from person to person."
GENETIC DISPOSITION AND HORMONES IN THE WOMB DO APPEAR TO BE SIGNIFICANT, AND PROBABLY EXCLUSIVE (CERTAINLY IN MOST CASES), FACTORS IN DETERMINING SEXUAL ORIENTATION. FAMILY UPBRINGING, PEER EXPERIENCES, AND A PERSON’S SEXUAL HISTORY MAY WELL EXPLAIN SOME SEXUAL BEHAVIORS, BUT THE EXPERTS WITH WHOM I HAVE CONSULTED HAVE PRETTY MUCH REJECTED THESE LAST THREE FACTORS AS CAUSES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
WHETHER CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE (EITHER SAME SEX OR OPPOSITE SEX) IMPACTS SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS AN INTERESTING SUBJECT. DR. WILLIAM HOLMES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL SCHOOL, A PROMINENT RESEARCHER IN THE AREA, HAS DONE DETAILED STUDIES, AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT, AS A GENERAL MATTER, SEXUAL ABUSE IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SAME SEX ORIENTATION. HAVE ANY REPUTABLE RESEARCHERS DONE ANY SYSTEMATIC STUDIES OF THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF MALES WHO WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED BY PRIESTS? ARE A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF VICTIMS NOW SELF-IDENTIFIED HOMOSEXUALS? THE ANSWER TO SUCH A QUESTION WOULD NOT DEFINITIVELY ANSWER THE OVERALL QUESTION OF THE IMPACT OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, BUT IT WOULD OPEN FURTHER AVENUES OF STUDY.
IN ANY EVENT, THE QUESTION OF THE ETIOLOGY OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE REVISED CURRICULUM THAT WAS TO BE PILOTED LAST SPRING.
....
"Who is Homosexual?
Many people - especially adolescents - experience a time of confusion about their sexual identity. someone may fee attraction to a person of their own sex or have a person of their own sex demonstrate sexual feelings for them, and wonder, "Am I homosexual ?"
THAT IS WHY THE REVISED CURRICULUM MADE IT CLEAR THAT “FLEETING [SAME SEX] ATTRACTION OR CONTACT DOES NOT PROVE LONG-TERM SEXUAL ORIENTATION.”
...
example of someone they know..
"Very few people are homosexual. You may have heard the statistic that "one out of ten people is gay or lesbian." That estimate turns out to be much too high and based on faulty research. Three recent sudies have found a much lower figure.
They cite 3 studies, 1 ) a Minnesota study that said 26% of 12-year olds said they were uncertain of their sexual orientation and then at 18, only 5% were unsure and 98% of those that said they were sure said they were heterosexual..2) the Guttmacher study and another study in France, both of which put the number at 1%.
NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE PRECISE PERCENTAGE. THE REVISED CURRICULUM DID NOT ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. BUT WHETHER THE NUMBER IS 1% OR 10% IS NOT TERRIBLY RELEVANT. THE ISSUE IS NOT HOW RARE HOMOSEXUALITY IS (WE ALL AGREE THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE HETEROSEXUAL), BUT WHAT WE TEACH ABOUT THOSE WHO DO NOT HAPPEN TO BE HETEROSEXUAL.
"You may know people who tease, pick on, or are even violent to those they suspect to be homosexual. these behaviors are clearly wrong because they are not loving, respectful, or just.
May people, however, confuse respect with approval. They think that if you respect people who are gay or lesbian, you must also approve of their sexual lifestyle. This is a mistaken belief. Ethics requires us to respect people, not their actions. "
Okay, so this make the point that the Catholic faith holds that homosexual behavior is wrong, which clearly isn't going to fly in a public school. But I don't think you can make the statement that homosexual sex is just fine and dandy either, without starting to tread moral ground that you shouldn't be touching. Like the famous "baptist church is biblically misguided" impression that the judge believed the last curriculum implied.
AS FOR THERESA’S LAST STATEMENT THAT JUDGE WILLIAMS BELIEVED THAT THE CURRICULUM IMPLIED THAT THE “BAPTIST CHURCH IS BIBICALLY MISGUIDED,” IN FACT THE CURRICULUM DID NO SUCH THING AND THE ONLY STATEMENT REGARDING RELIGION WAS THAT “DIFFERENT RELIGIONS TAKE DIFFERENT STANDS OF SEXUAL BEHAVIORS AND THERE ARE EVEN DIFFERENT VIEWS AMONG PEOPLE OF THE SAME RELIGION.” PERHAPS JUDGE WILLIAMS BELIEVED THAT A FEW STATEMENTS IN SOME BACKGROUND TEACHER RESOURCES MIGHT HAVE BLED INTO THE CURRICULUM; I HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE TEACHERS THAN THAT.
ANYWAY, THE STICKING POINT IN HIS DECISION WAS NOT THE “RELIGION” PART – MEMBERS OF THE OLD CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WERE PREPARING TO RECOMMEND THAT THOSE TEACHER RESOURCES BE REMOVED WHEN THE COMMITTEE WAS TERMINATED. THE STICKING POINT WAS THE ABSURD PROPOSITION THAT IF THE CURRICULUM WAS TO TEACH THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDICAL COMMUNITY HAS CONCLUDED THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER AND THAT MOST EXPERTS DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS A CHOICE, THEN MCPS WAS BOUND BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO PRESENT THE “OTHER VIEW” THAT HOMOSEXUALTY IS A MENTAL DISORDER AND CAN BE “REPAIRED.”
BUT TO ADDRESS THERESA’S PRINCIPAL POINT HERE – THAT SHE DOESN’T “THINK YOU CAN MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS JUST FINE AND DANDY EITHER, WITHOUT STARTING TO TREAD MORAL GROUND THAT YOU SHOULDN’T BE TOUCHING” - I WOULD NOTE THE FOLLOWING:
NOTHING IN THE REVISED CURRICULUM SAID THAT “HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS JUST FINE AND DANDY.” INDEED, THE REVISED CURRICULUM DID NOT DISCUSS HOMOSEXUAL SEX AT ALL. WHAT THE CURRICULUM SAID IS THAT THE “ALL MAJOR PROFESSIONAL MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS AFFIRM THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER,” AND THAT THERE ARE FAMILIES IN OUR COMMUNITY HEADED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES. THOSE ARE SIMPLY FACTS.
IF STUDENTS DEDUCE FROM THOSE FACTS THAT THERE IS NOTHING “WRONG” WITH BEING GAY, FINE.
IF PARENTS WANT TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS’ POSITION AFFIRMING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER IS INCORRECT, THEY ARE FREE TO DO, JUST AS PARENTS IN DOVER, PA, ARE FREE TO TELL THEIR CHILDREN TH