Ex-Gay Watch

I have to be cautious like Brady. When did the facts ever keep creationists from spouting off?

Oh there’s an easy solution for someone demanding something beyond explaining gay, straight and bisexual…(I mean, those already cover all do they not?)PFOX and Christian Educators Association International will be delighted, I’m sure, to include an equal discussion about how straight kids can just go gay if they want to. Exstraights — that would be the opposite and equal to Exgay. Kids need to know they don’t have to be straight.This will be a particularly appealing message to the girls after they hear about heterosexual domestic violence, the dangers of childbirth and the (almost nil) rate of HIV due to lesbian sex. The boys will be happy to start imagining they won’t have the burden of the old “ball and chain” and kids and college fees, but can instead live happily ever after on Brokeback Mountain.The day that PFOX agrees to an equally anti-straight message along with their anti-gay message (or a pro-gay along with a pro-straight) is the day we can believe they are seriously interested in fair and open “discussion”.OK. My sarcasm level has reached critical levels. Better stop.

Part II. (Feeling better now)But I do note that PFOX continues to peddle the lie that they “successfully sued the Montgomery County Board of Education for failing to include the ex-gay viewpoint”.They did no such thing. Montgomery County got into trouble for including religious statements in the teacher’s resources (which were never in the student curriculum in any case, despite some confusion over that by the judge). PFOX got a 10 day temporary restraining order — solely because of those religious statements. A case never actually went to trial.The judge was in fact highly critical of the “exgay discussion” that PFOX had wanted in the curriculum, and did not accept any of their claims.(I have used quote marks because very little was actually said about exgays. PFOX’s message was in fact almost exclusively an antigay diatribe.) Following emphasis mine etc:

[PFOX] also argue that increased health risks to students once they receive the “pro-gay” message of Defendants constitute irreparable harm. This Court cannot agree.[PFOX] argue that homosexual sex is more dangerous than heterosexual sex, and that students at MPCS will be more likely to engage in homosexual sex if presented with the Revised Curriculum. [PFOX] cite numerous studies demonstrating that gay men are in the highest risk groups for various sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, HPV, Syphilis, and Chlamydia. [PFOX] also argue that homosexuals are more likely to have promiscuous, group, or otherwise “deviant” sex with multiple partners.At the outset, the Court questions the reliability of the studies to which [PFOX] cite, at least one of which was performed in the 1970s. The Court is well-aware that studies on the health risks of a homosexual lifestyle are numerous and, in many cases, contradictory. Indeed, as Defendants point out, many studies conclude that lesbians are in one of the lowest risk groups for a variety of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. Moreover, the harm that [PFOX] is highly speculative and attenuated. It would require more than a few logical leaps for this Court to find that MPCS students presented with the Revised Curriculum would suddenly choose to engage in promiscuous, unprotected, homosexual sex — adhering to the Revised Curriculum’s message of gay tolerance but somehow overlooking the even more forceful message of safe sex within the confines of a monogamous relationship. This is not the type of “actual and imminent” harm sufficient to demonstrate irreparable injury for the purposes of a temporary restraining order.

and the part about why they got the restraining order…

The Court is extremely troubled by the willingness of Defendants to venture —or perhaps more
correctly bound — into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality converge. The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Defendants must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground. As such, the Court is highly skeptical that the Revised Curriculum is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and finds that Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim certainly merits future and further investigation.

Frankly I have no idea why religion had to be mentioned at all. It’s a health class. And there was never any reason for presenting only one side of religious viewpoints — that is completely unacceptable, even if it was only in the teacher’s resources and not actually presented to the students.So the lesson is:Exgay viewpoints do not need to be included, particularly given they are overwhelmingly anti-gayLeave religion out of it. Always. This, of course, means excluding every single discussion ever likely to be presented by people like PFOX…