Sunday, December 03, 2006

More On Guidance Counselors and Backpacks

I hadn't seen this article in Blair High School's Silver Chips online newspaper, from several weeks ago. There is an odd situation involving how school counselors can work with gay students, and I'm not sure where it's headed.

This reporter did a lot of digging, and I'm going to include, I think, the whole thing.
Last June, the Virginia-based Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) submitted a statement to the MCPS Board of Education and Superintendent Jerry Weast claiming that, in May, a parent had received information from a school counselor that promoted a single viewpoint on homosexuality.

In response, MCPS Associate Superintendent Carey Wright called two separate meetings in mid-September for all high school counselors and school psychologists to discuss a new directive prohibiting the distribution of written materials without prior county approval.

Blair's Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) sent a letter to Deputy Superintendent Frieda Lacey on Oct. 4 expressing their concerns that the policy would compromise an important outlet of support for gay students. As of Nov. 6, they had not received a reply. Lacey was unavailable for comment.

Principal Phillip Gainous does not support the policy because, he said, it could restrict counselors' ability to help students who are struggling with their sexual identities. He extended his support to the GSA in their efforts to protest the new regulation. "The counselors, of all people, need to be in a position to offer guidance and advice to students," he said. Group claims bias in counseling materials: MCPS restricts guidance

OK, the story is that a parent went to a school counselor saying that their kid was gay, and asking if there was any literature they could take home. It was a set-up. Some versions have this parent as a CRC member, the Silver Chips version seems to suggest it might have been somebody from PFOX.

Whatever, you do want to know exactly what that "new directive" is really about, and what "county approval" is.
Counselors now require approval from the MCPS central office before they can distribute written materials to students or parents, according to Bonnie Cullison, president of the Montgomery County Education Association. MCPS is currently working to assemble a list of pre-approved sources from which counselors can obtain reliable information, Cullison said.

The meeting for counselors stressed the importance of accurate information regarding "gender-specific issues" and sexuality, according to Blair counselors Dwayne Thomas and Melba Battle, who attended the meeting.

No written statements have been produced regarding the new regulations, which Johnson and Battle believe may be due to MCPS administrators' reluctance to formalize the policy. Christina Webb, executive assistant to Lacey, denied the existence of an official policy addressing the written materials distributed by counselors.

According to Battle, the new directive was issued in response to a complaint from a parent who considered information provided by an MCPS counselor to be promoting one viewpoint of homosexuality over others.

Well, there is one viewpoint, shared by all the major medical and mental health organizations, and that should be what they carry.

Since this is PFOX, and we know that the president of PFOX, Richard Cohen, was expelled for life from the American Counseling Association, we infer that when they say they want more than one viewpoint, they mean they want the illegitimate views promoted by PFOX to be distributed in school counseling offices.

After careful thought and many, many long-winded and contentious meetings of TeachTheFacts.org officers and directors, we have decided that our official point of view will be to oppose the distribution of PFOX's bogus materials at the schools.

Silver Chips continues:
Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX, said that a parent contacted PFOX after the alleged incident occurred on May 17. Griggs said the information that the parent received included a list of web sites for "pro-gay" organizations and instructions for starting a gay-straight alliance in high school. She said that the counselor did not give any information presenting the viewpoint of "ex-gays" — the belief that people who define themselves as homosexual can later change their sexual orientation. PFOX said the information promoted a biased view of homosexuality.

Griggs would not disclose the name of the school at which the incident occurred.

If you know which school this was, put something in our comments, OK? We hear rumors, but they're not solid enough to post in a blog on the Internet.

And gee, don't you just wonder why they didn't give out any information about "ex-gays?" Do they mean information about ... straight people?
On May 23, PFOX wrote to MCPS Director of Public Information Brian Edwards to request materials on sexual orientation and sexual identity. When they did not receive a response, PFOX wrote another letter on June 5 to MCPS School Counseling Services Supervisor Kent Weaver, the Board of Education and Superintendent Jerry Weast, calling the incident "a clear bias against credible viewpoints about former homosexuals."

Edwards responded to the May 23 letter on June 26, saying that the county had no official materials to distribute regarding sexuality. On Aug. 4, PFOX wrote back informing Edwards that "several parents" had received materials from counselors about homosexuality.

If you're going to hand out stuff about "ex-gays," in order to really avoid bias you'll have to include stuff about ex-straights, too. Because, to tell you the truth, there are way more ex-straights than people who went the other way. Just ask Ted Haggard, the ex-straight preacher. Or James McGreevey, the ex-straight governor of New Jersey. Or Jim West, the ex-straight mayor of Spokane, Washington. Or ... you see what I'm saying.

And how many "ex-gays" can you name?

Silver Chips again:
To ensure that students receive equal information, Griggs said that PFOX plans to distribute fliers to all MCPS students over the course of the school year. A new MCPS policy requires that all fliers produced by non-profit organizations only be distributed through MCPS during one set period per quarter. PFOX's flier, which contains information about the organization and their views on homosexuality, will be distributed during the next quarterly period at Quince Orchard. PFOX's ultimate goal is to distribute fliers regarding sexuality in all MCPS high schools, said Griggs.

Griggs said that PFOX is not satisfied with MCPS's new requirements for counselors. She proposed that specific, approved materials be mandatorily distributed to all students who request information to ensure that students receive all available, credible, pre-approved information. "I don't think we want to have to continually do legal battles to make sure children have all the information," she said.

PFOX sued MCPS in June 2005, to revise MCPS's proposed health curriculum, which PFOX claimed "contained resources that were factually incorrect, biased, opposed certain religious viewpoints, and did not present different scientifically based views on the subject of homosexuality," according to the June 5 letter. Griggs cited the counselor incident as another example of how MCPS has omitted valid viewpoints in its presentation of homosexuality to students.

Now, I've never met Ms. Griggs, but news reports do mention that she has a gay son. Can you imagine being a gay guy, and your mother is telling people every day of her life that you can change? Can she really believe it? If she does, what does she think about her son, who insists on choosing to stay gay?

Some of these things are so sad you almost don't want to joke about them.

But you have to.
Cullison explained that the new regulations aim to ensure objectivity. She said that while verbal conversations between a counselor and student are confidential and cannot be regulated, written information distributed by counselors should be neutral. As a public school system, MCPS has a legal obligation not to promote any one viewpoint over another. Ultimately, MCPS and its counselors all care about the well-being of students, she said. "The school system is really focused on what it has to do and tries to stay out of big social issues and avoid legal activity," she said.

GSA sponsor and social studies teacher Mary Thornton said that she is disappointed by MCPS's response to the PFOX complaints. "We keep backing down from lawsuits that we should stand up to and fight," she said. "We're supposed to stand for the students and their own pursuit of their fullest potential."

Thornton added that PFOX, based in Virginia, should not be involved in MCPS because they are not "stakeholders" in MCPS education.

Well, yes, that's something. These people don't even live here.

This stuff that they're saying, about a school not promoting one viewpoint over the other, is very dangerous. That would mean you can't mention the NAACP without bringing in the Klan -- I mean, c'mon, anybody can see the insanity of this... can't they?

And we're not talking about some difference of opinion here. Medical and psychological experts are in accord about how to treat gay individuals. There's a right answer to the question, and PFOX doesn't have it.

Think about the idea that a school has to express both sides of every issue equally. As someone noted in the comments to this article online, "it's absurd."
Blair counselors agree that the new regulations serve a necessary purpose and that they do not feel restricted by the rule. Resource counselor Marcia Johnson said the meeting was a "reminder" rather than a real policy change. "We already knew that we need to make sure we get approved information, as opposed to information from agencies that are not established," she said.

Thomas said that he understood the meeting as a discussion of how counselors can be better prepared to deal with issues like homosexuality.

Before the meeting, counselors often did not know what kind of information to give students who request literature on sensitive issues, Battle said. She hopes that MCPS compiles the list of approved sources, which would be a helpful resource for all MCPS counselors.

See, this can't work out well for PFOX. Their literature is all religious, for one thing; there's really no other argument for denying your deepest feelings and living your entire life without love. Their beliefs are soundly rejected by all the professional organizations, for another. The idea that there are "two sides" to the issue is a complete fiction they have dreamed up. Nobody thinks you can change who you're attracted to, and most sensible people fail to see the virtue in pretending to be what you aren't.

Think of PFOX as the Flat Earth Society, constantly suing to have "both sides" of the debate included in the schools.
GSA President Avi Edelman is concerned that gay students will not get the guidance they need because of the limitations on counselors and psychologists. "Being gay in high school is such a tough thing," Edelman said. "[The new MCPS regulation is] something that should really concern students. To me, it's saying that a bureaucratic process is more important than the concerns of the students."

Gainous read the GSA's letter and supports the club's efforts to protest the policy, which he worries will eliminate an important source of support for students. "We've got all these young people seeking answers in the street when we could be the ones responding to their individual needs," he said.

Norman Aaronson, an education law professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said that MCPS is legally entitled to require information distributed by counselors to be approved by the county. Aaronson cited the Supreme Court case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier for giving the school system the power to control the information distributed to students. "As long as they can relate it to legitimate concerns, the school system can control information that's disseminated through employees," he said.

People we've talked to inside the school district are reassuring but vague. It is impossible that they'll ever hand out PFOX junk. As far as materials produced by groups that support the gay community, what's wrong with that? Is the American Heart Association's brochure on heart disease biased? Of course the gay advocacy groups know something about being gay, and it's silly to propose that their materials should be restricted.

By the way, it's fun reading the comments on this article at Silver Chips. Like, somebody points out that the school computer system blocks the PFOX web site, which is hilarious. One commenter made this good observations: pfox is Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays. but what are ex-gays? former gays. could these "ex-gays" be "bisexuals?" i think so. why are only parents/friends in pfox? where are the gays and ex-gays themselves?

The school district would like this problem to go away. But when you have someone as irrepressibly annoying as Regina Griggs popping up through every possible opening -- it's not going away. The guidance counselors have no business even considering PFOX's ridiculous ideas, and I think MCPS must understand that if they start promoting this particular flavor of nuttiness they will have the whole community jumping down their throats. Not just a couple of annoying whiners: all of us. Hopefully they are being careful here.

50 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"they will have the whole community jumping down their throats. Not just a couple of annoying whiners: all of us"

So you think the whole county is going to rise up and demand that kids not hear the possibility that those who don't have normal sexual attractions can change?

Groovy, man! Sounds like a cool flashback.

December 04, 2006 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Of course the gay advocacy groups know something about being gay,"

Of course so does PFOX.

December 04, 2006 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"People we've talked to inside the school district are reassuring but vague."

Must have talked to people who have been through the principal training program.

December 04, 2006 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The idea that there are "two sides" to the issue is a complete fiction they have dreamed up."

Until there are scientific studies proving something, there are an infinite number of sides to any issue.

December 04, 2006 9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"See, this can't work out well for PFOX."

Seems to be going pretty well so far.

December 04, 2006 9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Medical and psychological experts are in accord about how to treat gay individuals."

Really? What do they say?

December 04, 2006 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That would mean you can't mention the NAACP without bringing in the Klan --"

Are they distributing NAACP literature in school? There are some alternative viewpoints other than the Klan to some NAACP positions.

December 04, 2006 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If she does, what does she think about her son, who insists on choosing to stay gay?"

That he has self-determination. I'm sure he's appalled.

December 04, 2006 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you're going to hand out stuff about "ex-gays," in order to really avoid bias you'll have to include stuff about ex-straights, too. Because, to tell you the truth, there are way more ex-straights than people who went the other way. Just ask Ted Haggard, the ex-straight preacher. Or James McGreevey, the ex-straight governor of New Jersey. Or Jim West, the ex-straight mayor of Spokane, Washington. Or ... you see what I'm saying."

In point of fact, TTF is biased against ex-straights too. Everytime one of these stories come out, they insist that these people were always gay and never normal.

Further, while they pretend their bias against ex-gays causes no harm, think of a person who has errantly engaged in a homosexual lifestyle, sees the error of their ways and pursues heterosexual relationships. They have to hide their past or give up because TTF-types have convinced everyone that once you are gay, you're always gay and always have been. No surprise that many revert under this pressure.

December 04, 2006 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Gainous read the GSA's letter and supports the club's efforts to protest the policy, which he worries will eliminate an important source of support for students. "We've got all these young people seeking answers in the street when we could be the ones responding to their individual needs," he said."

This idiot needs to focus on his mission: educating kids. The school is not there for counseling on personal issues. If so, we need to stop keeping clergy out of schools. Maybe we could institute a military-like chaplain system for schools here in Montgomery County.

December 04, 2006 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Their literature is all religious, for one thing;"

Not a problem, Jim. Have you heard about the Good News Club or Judge Williams' ruling on the Fishback revisions?

The schools can't engage in bias against religion.

December 04, 2006 10:05 AM  
Blogger andrear said...

anon, posting many times shows who isn't normal. Or maybe you are just childish. Yes, I certainly think PFOX and CRC basing their ideas on Richard Cohen are to be preferred to the AMA and the APA. Just like I plan to get psychic surgery instead of going to a real surgeon. People say psychic surgery works so it must be true- especially if the AMA disagrees.

December 04, 2006 12:26 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous its a bad idea to tell same sex attracted kids they can and should change when all the evidence suggests virtually no one is able to change from gay to straight and it is normal for a minority to be gay. PFOX is blinded by religion and denies this reality so therefore is not an acceptable source of information for gay teenagers. Asking PFOX to provide an alternative to gay advocacy groups is exactly like having the Klan as an alternative to the NAACP.

You said "Further, while they pretend their bias against ex-gays causes no harm, think of a person who has errantly engaged in a homosexual lifestyle, sees the error of their ways and pursues heterosexual relationships. They have to hide their past or give up because TTF-types have convinced everyone that once you are gay, you're always gay and always have been. No surprise that many revert under this pressure. "

TTF expresses no bias in favour of straights or gays, they support letting people live their own sexuality as they see fit without coercion to live a lie from groups like PFOX. TTF doesn't force any gay person pursuing heterosexual relationships to hide their past to avoid not being seen as straight. It is PFOX who requires gays who want to appear straight to hide their past to avoid being outed with the "exgay" label. In any event we've seen from many cases like Haggard that poor outcomes are to be expected from gay men pursuing straight relationships.
Better they live as their unchosen desires encourage than try to appease others by going against what comes naturally.

Part of educating kids is teaching them to deal with the society they live in. Just because an issue is personal doesn't mean it isn't important to learn. For gay kids this means teaching them how to live in an oppressive society and providing a counter-balance of acceptance to ease the burden. Clergy are ill suited for this as they commonly choose an anti-gay approach while ignoring the reality of what's best for such teenagers.

December 04, 2006 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"anon, posting many times shows who isn't normal."

Problem is, Jim posts these lengthy, ranging monolgues that deserve many responses, hoping to tire out any opposition. Responding more than once breaks it down into digestible chunks for the reader.

"Or maybe you are just childish. Yes, I certainly think PFOX and CRC basing their ideas on Richard Cohen are to be preferred to the AMA and the APA."

What ideas of AMA and APA? It is interesting how TTF opposes teaching intelligent design because it can't be proven and yet the associations' claims that homogaiety is beyond any claim of the will is much less verifiable. But no TTF objection.

Hypocrites.

December 04, 2006 3:28 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, nobody believes that sexual orientation is a choice, that will has anything to do with it. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council was quoted here saying that the direction of sexual attraction is not a choice, and in fact he said there is widespread agreement even among conservatives about that. It's not something TTF made up.

Now, Peter Sprigg thinks that people who are attracted to members of the same sex should stifle themselves, and we don't, but there is not disagreement about the impulse arising without being summoned by will.

The professional organizations, acknowledging that there is not much hope in changing someone's sense of attraction, and acknowledging that homosexual people are no more likely to have mental disorders than straight people, decided to advocate the point of view that it is better to help gay people adjust to a natural and fulfilling life that is based on their true feelings than to try to get them to change. And we agree with them on that.

It's not very hard to understand.

JimK

December 04, 2006 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous its a bad idea to tell same sex attracted kids they can and should change"

The "and should" here is a fantasy. PFOX doesn't propose that.

"when all the evidence suggests virtually no one is able to change from gay to straight"

No, it doesn't.

"and it is normal for a minority to be gay."

Common and normal aren't synonymous.

"PFOX is blinded by religion and denies this reality so therefore is not an acceptable source of information for gay teenagers."

In your opinion. You're kind of biased.

"Asking PFOX to provide an alternative to gay advocacy groups is exactly like having the Klan as an alternative to the NAACP."

When does PFOX threaten and intimidate gays like the Klan does to minorities? Any examples to back up this inflammatory and irresponsible lie?

"TTF expresses no bias in favour of straights or gays, they support letting people live their own sexuality as they see fit without coercion to live a lie from groups like PFOX."

Because of the lies told by groups like TTF, anyone who has ever engaged in gay behavior is branded and is likely to not be accepted as potential partners for females. TTF spreads the lie that they are gay forever and without possibility of redemption.

"TTF doesn't force any gay person pursuing heterosexual relationships to hide their past to avoid not being seen as straight."

Maybe not purposely, but that's the effect.

"It is PFOX who requires gays who want to appear straight to hide their past to avoid being outed with the "exgay" label."

That's ridiculous. It would help their cause if more ex-gays identified as such. I assume your bias has led you to this illogical conclusion.

"In any event we've seen from many cases like Haggard that poor outcomes are to be expected from gay men pursuing straight relationships.
Better they live as their unchosen desires encourage than try to appease others by going against what comes naturally."

You're completely extrapolating about his desires, motives and nature.

"Part of educating kids is teaching them to deal with the society they live in."

Giving them the opinions of less than half the population hardly does that.

"Just because an issue is personal doesn't mean it isn't important to learn."

You need to acknowledge their entire person not just a few lurid fantasy. Defining one's identity by his/her sexual attractions is a dubious notion.

"For gay kids this means teaching them how to live in an oppressive society and providing a counter-balance of acceptance to ease the burden."

In other words, leading them to the conclusions you want them to have.

"Clergy are ill suited for this as they commonly choose an anti-gay approach while ignoring the reality of what's best for such teenagers."

A typically TTF stereotypical statement.

December 04, 2006 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's not very hard to understand."

You could say the same about IT.

It's easy for the associations to take this political path here because the statements can't be verified or disproven. This is exactly what TTF says about IT.

APA and AMA have made statements that are not scientific because they can't be proven or disproven.

December 04, 2006 3:54 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Okay, I'll say it, since everybody else seems to want to humor this asshole.

Anon, you're an idiot.

Merle

December 04, 2006 4:01 PM  
Anonymous BenElk said...

"This idiot..."

So I am not even out of high school, I must say that I am thoroughly impressed by how cowardly you are, Mr. Anonymous, for obvious reasons. I reiterate what Merle said.

December 04, 2006 4:23 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, the religiously based PFOX teaches that being gay is a sin, that in other words all gays should change because "god" and their society wants it that way.

The studies by Robert Spitzer, and Shidlo and Schroeder all show that few if any people going through "exgay" therapy change from gay to straight. There are no randomly sampled studies showing any significant degree of success in converting people from gay to straight.

The Klan pretends to not hate black people anymore, they threaten and intimidate minorities less than PFOX does with gays. PFOX's religiously based message teaches that its a sin to be gay and that gays should be eternally tortured for being in loving monogamous relationships. Only a fool would suggest that isn't at least as threatening and intimidating as anything the Klan currently does.

Common and normal can be synonymous. Gays have existed throughout all societies across all recorded history in roughtly the same ratios. This wouldn't be the case if it weren't normal for a small percentage of people - obviously it is.

You said "Because of the lies told by groups like TTF, anyone who has ever engaged in gay behavior is branded and is likely to not be accepted as potential partners for females. TTF spreads the lie that they are gay forever and without possibility of redemption."

TTF doesn't brand anyone as unacceptable partners for female, but the "exgay" label sure does. TTF advocates that anyone who truly has changed from gay to straight should refer to themselves as straight - no female is going to reject a guy for that. If these people have truly changed and don't want to be branded there is no reason not to refer to themselves as heterosexual. The fact of the matter is the only reason any one uses the "exgay" label is for the political purpose of denying gays social acceptance by giving the false impression they can and should change. The only reason "exgays" are discriminated against is because the label itself associates them with "gay".

Being bisexual myself I have a lot more insight into Ted Haggard's state than a supposed heterosexual like you. You are heterosexual, aren't you? Failed marriages of gay men to straight women are common whereas unbroken marriages of this type are extremely rare. That's sound reason to show that they are to be avoided as opposed to the foolish idea you propose that gay men take this almost always doomed path.

The sex of the people we are attracted to is central to the person. Assuming you are a heterosexual male, its just as foolish to say an attraction to females isn't fundamental to your identity as to say that an attraction to males isn't fundamental to who a gay man is. We base much of our lives around the one we love, if you sum up your relationship with your woman as "a few lurid fantasies" I can assure you that's not the case for a gay couple in love.

The conclusions we should all want children to have are based on knowing that whatever you do its okay as long as you aren't hurting others. That's the foundation of morality and something you apparently lack. Its right and moral to teach kids that its okay to be gay, that society, even when its the majority is wrong to punish you when you've harmed no one. School is one the few places we can assure gay kids get a needed message of social acceptance while they learn how to deal with homophobes like you.

December 04, 2006 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, you're an idiot.

Merle"

What a thoughtful analysis, Merle. Why reason when you can insult? I'm sure the choir you're preaching to is quite impressed.

December 04, 2006 9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, nobody believes that sexual orientation is a choice, that will has anything to do with it. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council was quoted here saying that the direction of sexual attraction is not a choice, and in fact he said there is widespread agreement even among conservatives about that."

Let's see the quote, Jim. You have a tendency to extrapolate from vagueness.

December 04, 2006 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Being bisexual myself I have a lot more insight into Ted Haggard's state"

You have no idea what his state is. You are simply reading into the situation what you want.

December 04, 2006 10:24 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Look back up this thread, idiot. People have been reasoning with you all day long. Look back at the other threads here. People reasoning with you, day after day. I look and your posting four, five idiotic things in a row, one after the other. Dont you have a job? Do you have a life at all?

You don't get it. You have shown yourself incapable of reasoning with the people here. You make assertions only, nothing backed up with a fact, just statements that have to be true because you said them.

Your an idiot, that's all there is to it. It's not really even an insult, just an observation.

Merle

December 04, 2006 10:25 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Let's see the quote, Jim.

Sure, Anon, no problem. Here's Peter's Epistle to Matthew. He says: I do not believe, and I do not know anyone who believes, that same-gender sexual attractions or desires are a “choice.”

JimK

December 04, 2006 10:30 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Jim, why bother? Although I guess to Anon, another moron like Peter Sprigg is equivalent to all the AMA and APA statements. After all, they are just a lot of people with several advanced degrees and we know those people are all bad.

Merle,thank you. Anon is a jerk. I think he does have a job and I think I know what it is.

December 05, 2006 9:01 AM  
Blogger digger said...

Randi said:

"The fact of the matter is the only reason any one uses the "exgay" label is for the political purpose of denying gays social acceptance by giving the false impression they can and should change."

I think Randi's right. The reason I figure that so many conservative religious organizations and socially right-wing groups put so much effort into the ex-gay movement, so that they can perpetuate the myth of choice and change (option), thus not to seem so unkind when they deny lgbt people basic human rights (marriage, workplace protection, defense against hate-criemes, helpful information for youth, and of course staying out of jail--please remember that until some activist judges made their decision, my social life was punishable in my home state with 5 years in prison; this law was supported whole-heartedly by a number of "family" groups, and the Republican party and officials in Virginia).

rrjr

December 05, 2006 9:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sure, Anon, no problem. Here's Peter's Epistle to Matthew. He says: I do not believe, and I do not know anyone who believes, that same-gender sexual attractions or desires are a “choice.”"

Thanks, Jim. If this is all there is, obviously anyone would agree with it. We all have fleeting desires and strange whims about all kinds of things. The point is, if we have a choice about anything, we can choose whether to indulge and develop these feelings or go another direction. We also may well have had a choice about the things that led to those feelings. Again, this all applies to everything from preference to cuisine to landscaping to music.

But the gay advocacy groups use the term in another sense, turning sexuality preferences into something innate and immutable, in a category by itself, immune from moral considerations and deserving of special protection.

There is no scientific basis for this special status and it's doubtful there ever will be. It's among the things that can't be proved one way or another.

December 05, 2006 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Look back up this thread, idiot. People have been reasoning with you all day long."

Oh, OK, imbecile. As long as you recognize that none of those people were you.

December 05, 2006 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"After all, they are just a lot of people with several advanced degrees and we know those people are all bad."

Poor dear Andrea. So bright and yet without historical perspective. Little does she realize that, throughout the ages, "a lot of people with several advanced degrees" have believed many things we now know are untrue. Indeed, for all we know, lacking any surveys, they may still. We do know that, less than thirty years ago, the majority of "a lot of people with several advanced degrees" disagreed with these very assertions you reference now.

It's a little hard to ascribe inerrancy to groups that are so inconsistent. I'm sure these associations do a nice job protecting the interests of their members but their pronouncements are not scientific information. They're opinions.

December 05, 2006 9:50 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

... turning sexuality preferences into something innate and immutable, in a category by itself, immune from moral considerations and deserving of special protection.
...


First of all, Anon, I would ask you to show us where exactly the "gay advocacy groups" say that, but I know you won't -- because they don't. They believe that sexual attraction is usually immutable, it seems, but then, almost everybody thinks that anyway -- very few (if any) truly straight people seriously consider turning gay, any more than gay people consider turning straight. It may be convenient for social reasons, but the feeling doesn't go away, there is widespread agreement on both sides about that.

If I understand this correctly, you're placing yourself to the right of Peter Sprigg on this issue? And at the same time you want to portray TTF as extremists?

I think we got your number, Anon.

JimK

December 05, 2006 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First of all, Anon, I would ask you to show us where exactly the "gay advocacy groups" say that, but I know you won't -- because they don't."

Assuming TTF is a gay advocacy group, you just said it.

"If I understand this correctly, you're placing yourself to the right of Peter Sprigg on this issue?"

Well, I think you're reading too much into his statement. I usually agree with his organization's positions.

We're not discussing public policy though, so there is no right or left. I don't support any legislation forbidding homosexual practices. I simply think public schools should support mainstream values- and teach facts.

December 05, 2006 10:09 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Reading too much into it? You've got to be kidding.

Neither he, nor anybody he knows -- and think, for a minute, about who he knows! -- believes that same-gender sexual attractions or desires are a choice.

You think he's not being clear? You think he's wrong? Let's hear it, Smart Guy.

JimK

December 05, 2006 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Neither he, nor anybody he knows -- and think, for a minute, about who he knows! -- believes that same-gender sexual attractions or desires are a choice.

You think he's not being clear? You think he's wrong? Let's hear it, Smart Guy."

I think the whole idea of "choice" is unclear. Do you think you and he have the same ideas about how human desire and will and how those develop?

A psychologist named Willam Glasser who has developed something called "choice theory". Here's a couple of its tenets:

-All behavior is Total Behavior and is made up of four components: acting, thinking, feeling and physiology

-All Total Behavior is chosen, but we only have direct control over the acting and thinking components. We can only control our feeling and physiology indirectly through how we choose to act and think.

I think Aristotle actually said something very similar. I wonder if Glasser belongs to the APA.

December 05, 2006 11:20 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

I agree with the general framework that Sprigg discussed, the tripartite scheme for understanding sexual orientation. But it seems to me he makes one absurd, and one questionable assumption.

He says that "one's self-identification is a choice." Here, he is just saying you can "choose" -- if you want to call it that -- to identify yourself as who you really are, or as something else. There may be some level at which this is accurate, but generally it works out better if we adopt the self-identification of who we really are. I might "self-identify" as a strong, tall, handsome thirty-year-old, but it is hard to get people to play along with that. Because that's not who I am. The correct name for that sort of self-identification is delusion. And a gay person who convinces himself he is straight is just that, deluded.

Not to knock it, some people spend their whole life in a cloud of delusion. I just don't happen to think it's better.

Sprigg also trivializes the "choice" of behavior. Yes, we have choice over a specific behavior, but many people who get caught up in affairs describe them in terms of something they couldn't resist. Sex is one of the most fundamental attributes of life above the level of the slime mold, and it's not something that you just "decide" to do. Whatever, I'm not willing to go to the mat for that one. But he's wrong about self-identification, in fact his statement is just silly if you think about it.

JimK

December 05, 2006 11:45 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, only a fool thinks one human has no insight into other human's states. And an even bigger fool thinks one same sex attracted person has no insight into another same sex attracted person's state. I've been in Haggard's shoes, I know what its like to try not to be same sex attracted. There's no big mystery as to what he's feeling, its obvious to gay people. Assuming you are heterosexual this explains your inability, or perhaps unwillingness, to see that men like him don't belong in straight relationships.

Anonymous said "We all have fleeting desires and strange whims about all kinds of things. The point is, if we have a choice about anything, we can choose whether to indulge and develop these feelings or go another direction. We also may well have had a choice about the things that led to those feelings. Again, this all applies to everything from preference to cuisine to landscaping to music.".

For someone who's so insistent that we can't know Haggard's internal state your certainty about the internal state of being gay (something you supposedly have never experienced) couldn't be more misplaced. Anonymous I doubt you consider your opposite sex attractions fleeting (although that would explain a lot if you do) and its the same way with same sex attractions. The vast majority of people do not consider their sexual attractions fleeting or a whim, they are one of the strongest desires we have. Contrary to your lunacy the the experience of the vast majority of people seeking change shows there is no choice about having same sex attractions.

People don't choose even the weakest desires. They don't sit down with no preference one way or the other, consider the options, and then decide to experience a desire. It just happens without any concious choice. The first time you drink rootbeer you either like it or you don't or you're indifferent. You don't try it and then at a later time decide how you're going to experience it.

When it comes to innate drives like sex one simply cannot develop a taste for a gender they are not attracted to. Do you think you're a fleeting whim away from being gay?
Do you honestly think you can casually change your sexual desires to the other sex? Why don't you give it a try and see if you can change your sexual desires back and forth. You're foolishly denying your own experience when you say gays can choose their sexuality.

December 05, 2006 12:01 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Following up on Randi's point -- One can ask most straight spouses of transitioned women or men. They know full well that their former husband or wife is simply not the same sexual person she or he was before, and they almost always cannot make a change in their desire. They may stay in the marriage by choice, out of love, affection, friendship, companionship, concern for the children, etc., but they don't wake up one day and say, "Wow, you're hot! I never imagined I could desire you as you are."

December 05, 2006 1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"People don't choose even the weakest desires."

Then why aren't we writing curriculums around all these other desires?

December 05, 2006 2:17 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Because those other desires aren't central to who a person is, they aren't used as excuses to oppress, threaten, and abuse people with those desires.

December 05, 2006 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Because those other desires aren't central to who a person is, they aren't used as excuses to oppress, threaten, and abuse people with those desires."

Well, that's a bigoted comment, right there!

Have you ever read the cruel insensitive remarks made to people who like fruitcake? Where will it end? Can't we educate kids and let them know: these people had no choice about what to like! Why, why aren't we free...to be you and me?

December 05, 2006 4:05 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

You're a fruitcake alright.

December 05, 2006 4:37 PM  
Anonymous Andrew B. said...

The teacher quoted by Silver Chips is disappointed that MCPS doesn't stand up and fight these bigoted groups trying to promote intolerance in our schools by calling it, well, tolerance.

Where do I remember that from....? OH YEAH!!!! *I said that already!* About a year and a half ago, on the day the BOE settled the suit with PFOX/CRC, I spoke to the BOE during public comments and said, way back then: We should NEVER back down and "settle" with what is wrong and bigoted. We should NEVER acquiesce to people who attack an entire demographic of our students for being what they are. Settling with evil is not a lesson MCPS should be teaching the children in our schools.

I made these comments in the Carver Center, which used to be the MoCo school for black students. I think it sends a powerful message that we put our schools' leadership in a building that is a constant reminder that inequality is wrong and evil. Let's hope the Board will take the reminder to heart.

December 06, 2006 11:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"*I said that already!*"

Congratulations!

You beat the influential newspaper, the Silver Chips, to the punch.

December 07, 2006 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Andrew B. said...

I'm sorry to tempt the cowardly anonymous poster, but I cannot remain quiet while student groups and productions are dismissed so rudely. Silver Chips is an extremely influential newspaper. It is often regarded as the best student newspaper in the country, and it wins awards annually. Also, the Blair student population is well above 5,000, so I would imagine that the readership might reach well above 10,000 people if you assume that, on average, most students, parents, and teachers read it. Furthermore, I attribute much of former State Senator Ida Rubin's failure to win reelection (read: political-unknown's landslide victory against a well-known and powerful incumbent) to her failure to talk to the Silver Chips editorial board. Her opponent, AU Law Prof. and all-around good guy Jamie Raskin, cares about students and did speak to the editorial board. Silver Chips endorsed Raskin. Good for Raskin; good for Silver Chips.

The student staff at Silver Chips works extremely hard to put out a quality newspaper, and I would hate to see their hard work dismissed so out-of-hand. They balance heavy coursework with "flat nights" that can run until the early hours of the morning. Good job, anonymous; I see you have student interests at heart. I guess I should not expect you to put a kid's art or A+ paper up on the fridge either... Absolutely cruel of you!

December 07, 2006 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure it's a great student paper. You're the one that was whining about them repeating something you said a year and a half ago. Glad you got a chance to do a mea culpa.

You may think I'm cowardly, but on another thread a little while ago, "Canada" Randi said he wished I was dead. We're dealing with some sick lunatics here.

December 07, 2006 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Andrew B. said...

Correction: I realized I typed in my numbers incorrectly. Students: 3,000. Readership: 5,000 (a very low estimate).

December 07, 2006 1:01 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, I'm just seconding your own wishes that you be thought of in terms of posterity.

December 07, 2006 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're crazy, Randi.

December 08, 2006 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aha! Now we know who Anon is. It's Dr. Frist, making diagnoses without the benefit of a comprehensive medical exam.

Speaking of Frist, it was good to see how civil and positively warm the Democrats were with the send off of Dr. Frist compared to the GOP's send off of Tom Daschle in 2004.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701313.html

December 08, 2006 9:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows

December 08, 2006 9:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home