Townhall.com | Rebecca Hagelin | July 6, 2007
Quick question: Who thinks there isn’t enough frank sexual information forced on today’s kids? Is the bar for acceptable sexual behavior still too high? You would think so when reading a recent Washington Post article titled “A More Candid Approach to Sex-Ed.”
As many parents know, most sex-ed classes are already candid enough, thank you very much. The last thing we need is for anyone to spice them up or further complicate what should be a pretty simple subject. But that’s what schools in Montgomery County, Maryland plan to do by introducing lessons on homosexuality to 8th and 10th graders — lessons that serve to further the radical homosexual activist agenda.
Those in 8th grade, for example, may be asked to ponder their “gender identity.” Is this the same thing as your actual gender, which should be, ummm, obvious by this time? No. Students are told that it’s “your identification of yourself as a man or a woman, based on the gender you feel to be inside.” You could be a boy trapped in a girl’s body, or vice versa. Or something in between, it seems. Since when did knowing one’s gender get so … difficult? My goodness, isn’t there enough out there to confuse our children without asking them to question whether they are really a boy or truly a girl? Have we gone mad?
Whatever your true identity, though, you can bet it is “innate,” the 8th graders are told. To be certain they understand, the curriculum defines “innate” as “determined by factors present in an individual from birth.” In short, gays are born, not made, so “straights” can’t say homosexuality or bisexuality is wrong. (Does that apply to those who prefer bestiality or pedophilia? Just wondering …) What’s needed, then, is “tolerance,” which the curriculum says is “the ability to accept others’ differences and allow them to be who they are without expressing disapproval.” Does the same logic apply to other abnormal or harmful behaviors? Do we say, “Oh, so you’re an alcoholic — good for you!” Or, “Tendencies toward kleptomania? Well, don’t let me stand in your way!”? I think not.
. . . more