Mexico adds sex to school syllabus (1 Viewer)

[Jerry]

Biology texts confront church teachings and long-standing sexual mores

While reading this I need you to remember that these folks are crossing our border without restriction, becoming a greater and greater influence (=voting block...mostly democrat) in American society, and that Pres. Bush is uniting our government with theirs; so we can expect similar text books in our children's futures.

By MARION LLOYD
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

MEXICO CITY - When Mexican seventh-graders crack open their new biology books this week, they're in for a titillating surprise: Chapter four is all about sex.

And it's not the sterilized sex education of the past. For the first time, the federally mandated textbooks broach the once-taboo topics of masturbation and homosexuality while instructing students that there is nothing wrong with either.

Church officials and conservative groups are outraged. They charge that the texts — which are required teaching — encourage promiscuity and "abnormal" sexual practices. They are pressuring the federal government to remove passages they consider offensive.

"These days," one edition of the biology text states, "masturbation is considered a common and inoffensive sexual practice." The book, which includes images of famous works of erotic art, goes on to debunk "common myths" that masturbation causes people to go blind or grow hair on their palms.

The new texts are part of a federal crusade to reduce teenage pregnancies, which account for one in five births in Mexico, and prevent sexually transmitted diseases by introducing comprehensive sex education at an early age.

The campaign also seeks to fight widespread discrimination against gays in Mexico's predominantly Roman Catholic culture.

<snip>

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Biology texts confront church teachings and long-standing sexual mores

While reading this I need you to remember that these folks are crossing our border without restriction, becoming a greater and greater influence (=voting block...mostly democrat) in American society, and that Pres. Bush is uniting our government with theirs; so we can expect similar text books in our children's futures.

I suppose I would want to see one of the textbooks to make an accurate assessment. If erotic art is included, I see no educational value in presenting that to a group of 7th grade biology students. The whole thing, in itself, may be a little heavy for 11 and 12 year olds, and may make them uncomfortable, but, in general, I'm not sure what the problem with the sex education content presented here, is. Again, without actually seeing the books, the material seems to be OK, scientifically.

 

[Jerry]

I suppose I would want to see one of the textbooks to make an accurate assessment. If erotic art is included, I see no educational value in presenting that to a group of 7th grade biology students. The whole thing, in itself, may be a little heavy for 11 and 12 year olds, and may make them uncomfortable, but, in general, I'm not sure what the problem with the sex education content presented here, is. Again, without actually seeing the books, the material seems to be OK, scientifically.

I'm searching for the book itself. I may take a while, but I'll find it....I always do...

Mean time, going with the article, I must strongly disagree with the notion that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, as there clearly is.

Please see my most resent experience in this regard.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm searching for the book itself. I may take a while, but I'll find it....I always do...

Mean time, going with the article, I must strongly disagree with the notion that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, as there clearly is.

Please see my most resent experience in this regard.

Just replied to it in that thread's context. Briefly, I doubt the text book is advocating homosexuality;rather it, probably is mearly providing information about it, and trying to assist in preventing intolerance of homosexuals. Need to get back to work, so I'll try responding more here later.

Also, if you find the book, I, too, would be interested in checking it out.

 

[Jerry]

Just replied to it in that thread's context. Briefly, I doubt the text book is advocating homosexuality;rather it, probably is mearly providing information about it, and trying to assist in preventing intolerance of homosexuals. Need to get back to work, so I'll try responding more here later.

Also, if you find the book, I, too, would be interested in checking it out.

Just a quick word on the topic of "intolerance of homosexuals": Tolerance is allowing something to be while having and/or expressing objection. What I find so frequently is that people mistake objecting to, say, and gay marriage, as being the same thing as not allowing it to be. "Forcing opinions/religious values on others" is a core message in such mistakes.

For the record, when gay 'marriage becomes federally sanctioned (and I do assert that it is a matter of "when", not "if"), I will let it be while expressing objection. That is tolerance.

So many people wish for no objection to exist, yet that would be acceptance; that is, to let something be without objection.

Tolerance is not enough, they wish for me to accept their ways. They’ll have to meat me half way on this.

 

[MrFungus420]

Mean time, going with the article, I must strongly disagree with the notion that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, as there clearly is.

No, the only this clear is that that is your opinion, it is not a fact.

 

[Jerry]

No, the only this clear is that that is your opinion, it is not a fact.

Nice try with the classical "it's just your opinion" dismissal, but the above is the opinion of my ex-homosexual sister and my outed homosexual friend, not my own.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Nice try with the classical "it's just your opinion" dismissal, but the above is the opinion of my ex-homosexual sister and my outed homosexual friend, not my own.

OK, so it's their opinion, not fact.

 

[MrFungus420]

Nice try with the classical "it's just your opinion" dismissal, but the above is the opinion of my ex-homosexual sister and my outed homosexual friend, not my own.

It is still just opinion.

And, if it isn't your opinion, as you just said, then why would you promote it?

 

[Jerry]

OK, so it's their opinion, not fact.

Opinion is not fact's oposit.

My sister's opinion of herself comes from counseling and her personal experience; and experience is not illogical nor automaticly fals, as you would like to make it seem.

If she were to say, from experience, that people can recover from homosexuality (because she did) then that is at least just as qualified an opinion as those who say, from experience, that people can not recover from homosexuality.

However, I don't see people of the latter opinion put to question around here by gay 'marriage advokets or scientiic folks at DP, and that evidences bies.

It is still just opinion.

And, if it isn't your opinion, as you just said, then why would you promote it?

It's a witness to the truth, as admissible as evidence here as in a court.

I 1. take both my sister and Liz at their words, because I know that their character is trustworthy; and 2. I do not oppose the view that homosexuality is a disorder, as my own experiences have shown me that it clearly is.

The fact that people can and do become homosexual due to sexual abuse and rape, plus the fact that people can and do recover from homosexuality, shows that homosexuality is a treatable, recoverable disorder; not a mere variation like hair color.

I never knew of anyone who was raped, then found that their eye color changed as a result.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Jerry,

The fact that people can and do become homosexual due to sexual abuse and rape, plus the fact that people can and do recover from homosexuality, shows that homosexuality is a treatable, recoverable disorder; not a mere variation like hair color.

I've known people who have recovered as well. The more I learn about it the more I see things your way.

 

[Jerry]

Jerry,

I've known people who have recovered as well. The more I learn about it the more I see things your way.

Thank you master.

"The question of whether someone was "really" straight or "really" gay misrecognizes the nature of sexuality, which is fluid, not fixed, a narrative that changes over time. . . . It reveals sexuality to be a process of growth, transformation, and surprise, not a stable and knowable state of being."

—Marjorie Garber, Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life, 1995

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Jerry,

"The question of whether someone was "really" straight or "really" gay misrecognizes the nature of sexuality, which is fluid, not fixed, a narrative that changes over time. . . . It reveals sexuality to be a process of growth, transformation, and surprise, not a stable and knowable state of being."

—Marjorie Garber, Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life, 1995

So you think sexuality is fluid?

 

[ngdawg]

Y'all are threadjacking! Women who 'become gay' out of abuse, rape, etc., aren't gay...they just totally mistrust or hate men because of their experiences. Therapy helped them understand this and regain the trust and direction of their sexuality, as it was meant to be.
There are men and women who are gay. Period. No abuse, no overbearing mother or a sister who liked to dress them in opposing gender clothes...you know women who 'turned gay'-I know women who were just gay. One even has male-pattern baldness and looks more like a man than a woman.

Anyway, to the topic.
Without the entire chapter, it'd be impossible to gauge what is actually in there-hispanic teenage pregnancy is a real problem, I would venture to guess even moreso than any other racial group. By the time all kids are 11 or 12, they not only have a firm idea about sex, they have erroneous ideas as well because of peer to peer discussion over it. They need to know facts, not myths and they need to know them early on. Erotic art in itself doesn't have much to do with biology, but again, I'd have to see what they're talking about to think yay or nay to it.
It's really easy to take a snip that reflects the writer's view. It's done all the time here.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Opinion is not fact's oposit.

That's true. Opinion and fact are two very differnt concepts altogether.

My sister's opinion of herself comes from counseling and her personal experience; and experience is not illogical nor automaticly fals, as you would like to make it seem.

True again. However, expereince doesn't become universal truth, either.

If she were to say, from experience, that people can recover from homosexuality (because she did) then that is at least just as qualified an opinion as those who say, from experience, that people can not recover from homosexuality.

Again that doesn't make it true. Experience may make one able to identify the situation, but does not necessarily qualify one to identify the causes of that situation. There are many other explanations to the switching of sexual preferences. Most likely it has nothing to do with being homosexual or heterosexual, but rather it is a behavior that has developed because of a specific situation. I have never seen anyone turn gay or turn straight, and I've worked with many of both orientations. Sexual preference 'switches' were either not switches, but rather, exhibition of one's true, previously hidden feelings, or tendencies/behaviors inside the original sexual preference, developed because of a situation.

It's a witness to the truth, as admissible as evidence here as in a court.

Again, it describes the situation only. Not the cause.

I 1. take both my sister and Liz at their words, because I know that their character is trustworthy

I don't doubt their words either. I question the understanding of the causes of their situations.

2. I do not oppose the view that homosexuality is a disorder, as my own experiences have shown me that it clearly is.

I oppose the view that homosexuality is a disorder, as my own experiences have clearly shown that it isn't. As has the DSM-IV.

The fact that people can and do become homosexual due to sexual abuse and rape, plus the fact that people can and do recover from homosexuality, shows that homosexuality is a treatable, recoverable disorder; not a mere variation like hair color.

Nope. Just as I said, these are good examples of behavioral changes (coping mechanisms) to deal with adverse/traumatic situations. The recovery, you claim, is recovery from the trauma, at which point the behavior abates. Sometimes one never recovers sufficiantly from the trauma for the behavior to ever change. It is sometimes a challenge to dicipher the difference between this situation and someone who is homosexual. An event is often the key, though their can be other explanations.

 

[Jerry]

Y'all are threadjacking! Women who 'become gay' out of abuse, rape, etc., aren't gay...they just totally mistrust or hate men because of their experiences. Therapy helped them understand this and regain the trust and direction of their sexuality, as it was meant to be.

My question to that is: Why isn't this reflected in the pro GM movement?
When a pro GM person argues for gay marriage based on gender discrimination, why is an exception for those who have behavioral problems absent?

There are men and women who are gay. Period. No abuse, no overbearing mother or a sister who liked to dress them in opposing gender clothes...you know women who 'turned gay'-I know women who were just gay. One even has male-pattern baldness and looks more like a man than a woman.

There are also people who are born with one anatomical gender, yet are physiologically the other. Why isn't the difference between Transsexuality and "behavioral problems" present in the pro-GM movement?

Anyway, to the topic.
Without the entire chapter, it'd be impossible to gauge what is actually in there-hispanic teenage pregnancy is a real problem, I would venture to guess even moreso than any other racial group. By the time all kids are 11 or 12, they not only have a firm idea about sex, they have erroneous ideas as well because of peer to peer discussion over it. They need to know facts, not myths and they need to know them early on. Erotic art in itself doesn't have much to do with biology, but again, I'd have to see what they're talking about to think yay or nay to it.
It's really easy to take a snip that reflects the writer's view. It's done all the time here.

Leave your passive ad-homs at the door. If I wanted to manipulate the article I wouldn't have sourced it for all to see.

 

[Jerry]

That's true. Opinion and fact are two very differnt concepts altogether.

True again. However, expereince doesn't become universal truth, either.

Again that doesn't make it true. Experience may make one able to identify the situation, but does not necessarily qualify one to identify the causes of that situation. There are many other explanations to the switching of sexual preferences. Most likely it has nothing to do with being homosexual or heterosexual, but rather it is a behavior that has developed because of a specific situation. I have never seen anyone turn gay or turn straight, and I've worked with many of both orientations. Sexual preference 'switches' were either not switches, but rather, exhibition of one's true, previously hidden feelings, or tendencies/behaviors inside the original sexual preference, developed because of a situation.

Again, it describes the situation only. Not the cause.

I don't doubt their words either. I question the understanding of the causes of their situations.

I oppose the view that homosexuality is a disorder, as my own experiences have clearly shown that it isn't. As has the DSM-IV.

Nope. Just as I said, these are good examples of behavioral changes (coping mechanisms) to deal with adverse/traumatic situations. The recovery, you claim, is recovery from the trauma, at which point the behavior abates. Sometimes one never recovers sufficiantly from the trauma for the behavior to ever change. It is sometimes a challenge to dicipher the difference between this situation and someone who is homosexual. An event is often the key, though their can be other explanations.

The idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality includes the notion that there is nothing wrong with being in a state of coping with a trauma as a permanent lifestyle.

The trauma should be coped with and recovered from. The notion that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is not conductive with recovering from said trauma, as it promotes a coping mechanism for trauma as being no different than one's born sexual orientation.

There clearly is a difference between the 2, yet no distinction is made. Why?

 

[ngdawg]

My question to that is: Why isn't this reflected in the pro GM movement?
When a pro GM person argues for gay marriage based on gender discrimination, why is an exception for those who have behavioral problems absent?



There are also people who are born with one anatomical gender, yet are psychologically the other. Why isn't the difference between Transsexuality and "behavioral problems" present in the pro-GM movement?



Leave your passive ad-homs at the door. If I wanted to manipulate the article I wouldn't have sourced it for all to see.

Uh, dude...I was talking about the book snip IN the article...sip some water and calm down...

 

[Jerry]

Jerry,

So you think sexuality is fluid?

More or less, I think it is. Not that this makes various sexual acts okay. Our sexual orientation comes from our flesh, which also wishes to steel, murder, etc.

There is an appropriate time for sexual activity; it serves a purpose when used appropriately.

 

[Jerry]

Uh, dude...I was talking about the book snip IN the article...sip some water and calm down...

Oh, my bad :3oops:

 

[ngdawg]

The idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality includes the notion that there is nothing wrong with being in a state of coping with a trauma as a permanent lifestyle.

The trauma should be coped with and recovered from. The notion that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is not conductive with recovering from said trauma, as it promotes a coping mechanism for trauma as being no different than one's born sexual orientation.

There clearly is a difference between the 2, yet no distinction is made. Why?

Who said no distinction is made? Those who have trauma and the consequential behaviors do one of two things-seek help or don't. I'd be willing to bet that the societal stigma of homosexuality causes most gays to at some point seek therapy of a sort. Then two things from that can happen, they accept or not.
But you speak from the POV that there had to be trauma and that's just not so. If one is gay because of abuse and their reaction to it, it's not something they're born with obviously; then again, they wouldn't be comfortable in that lifestyle-either way it's not a conscious choice. It's either reactionary or genetic. In your personally known instances, it was reactionary. That's not the norm though. Being gay does not have the same basis as being a molester, wife beater, etc., where it's reactionary to their own backgrounds, ie; child molesters most times were themselves abused and molested and wife beaters came from abusive parents, usually a father or father figure.
And if being gay or lesbian was strictly a post-traumatic reaction, more abuse survivors would be gay and conversely, more gays would seek help to 'become' straight.
If society was just a bit more laid back and accepting of alternative sexualities instead of sticking its nose into everyone's pants, there'd be a lot less suicide, a lot less mental stress all around and a lot more smiling.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality includes the notion that there is nothing wrong with being in a state of coping with a trauma as a permanent lifestyle.

The trauma should be coped with and recovered from. The notion that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is not conductive with recovering from said trauma, as it promotes a coping mechanism for trauma as being no different than one's born sexual orientation.

There clearly is a difference between the 2, yet no distinction is made. Why?

You seem to be stating that all homosexuality is a coping behavior from a trauma. That is absolutely not what I said. I was responding to your comment about people you knew that had recovered from homosexuality. I believe that I did make a distinction between the two, but if I didn't, I will now. One whose sexual preferences are a direct response to a trauma where these behaviors are coping skills to deal with the trauma, need treatement in order to help recover from the trauma. Treatment should include thorough exploration of sexuality to determine the causes and meanings of these behaviors. All others whose sexual preference is homosexuality need no treatment as their behavior is not disordered as it is consistent with their sexual preference.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And if being gay or lesbian was strictly a post-traumatic reaction, more abuse survivors would be gay and conversely, more gays would seek help to 'become' straight.

Very well said, ngdawg. The only 'gays' that I have seen who were unsure of their sexuality or wanted to be 'straight' were those that were traumatized in some way and their homosexual behavior was causing them some sort of distress that caused significant impairment in social/behavioral/occupational/emotional or some other important type of funcitoning.

 

[Jerry]

Who said no distinction is made?

I have never heard it. Never. Not from Jallman, not gallenrox, not Cain, not JustineCredable, not in the media, not on Democratic-Underground......I have never heard such a distinction made.

Those who have trauma and the consequential behaviors do one of two things-seek help or don't. I'd be willing to bet that the societal stigma of homosexuality causes most gays to at some point seek therapy of a sort. Then two things from that can happen, they accept or not.

When my sister brought home her first girlfriend, she said she was born gay. She marched in parades, was involved in a few pro-GM political rally’s, etc. But she wasn't born gay, so how can I believe someone ells who say they are?

But you speak from the POV that there had to be trauma and that's just not so.

I am not speaking from that POV, as I have already made clear that there are (at least) 2 different origins for homosexuality: Transsexuality and trauma, neither of which are "normal, natural and healthy".

If one is gay because of abuse and their reaction to it, it's not something they're born with obviously; then again, they wouldn't be comfortable in that lifestyle-either way it's not a conscious choice. It's either reactionary or genetic.

I have yet to see the name of that gay gene.......
"Why is everybody freaking out about it being a choice? It's a great choice. I don't know why the genetics argument is going to help us. It didn't help blacks. I think it is a pathetic argument to say "I can't help it."
—JoAnn Loulan, lesbian activist, therapist, and author of the books Lesbian Sex and Lesbian Passion: Loving Ourselves and Each Other, quoted in "The Sexual Blur" by Ted Gideonse, from The Advocate, June 24, 1997

"We're also staking our lives on scientific research that at the moment is a crapshoot. . . . [W]hat if they discover that there's no biological basis to sexual orientation? Are we willing to promise that on that day, we'll give back any gay rights we've managed to win and march off to the psychic showers?"
—Lindsy Van Gelder, "The 'Born That Way' Trap," Ms., Vol. 1 No. 6, May/June 1991

And if being gay or lesbian was strictly a post-traumatic reaction, more abuse survivors would be gay and conversely, more gays would seek help to 'become' straight.

Inherent in [the "we can't help it" response to homophobia] is the implication that if we could help it, we would. Even when that isn't what we mean, it's what a fair number of straight people hear, including some of our allies. It's easier for some of them to pity us as bearers of a genetic flaw than to respect us as equals. Not challenging them might gain us some votes, but in the long run it means that we're subtly putting the word out that it's O.K. to regard us as sexually defective.
—Lindsy Van Gelder, "The 'Born That Way' Trap," Ms., Vol. 1 No. 6, May/June 1991

If society was just a bit more laid back and accepting of alternative sexualities instead of sticking its nose into everyone's pants, there'd be a lot less suicide, a lot less mental stress all around and a lot more smiling.

Tolerate, yes. Accept, no.
Gays have my tolerance, but they can never have my acceptance, as homosexual behavior is contrary to the Abrahamic traditions to which I ascribe.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I have never heard it. Never. Not from Jallman, not gallenrox, not Cain, not JustineCredable, not in the media, not on Democratic-Underground......I have never heard such a distinction made.

I think I made it in my posts...if i'm correct in understanding the distinction we are discussing.

When my sister brought home her first girlfriend, she said she was born gay. She marched in parades, was involved in a few pro-GM political rally’s, etc. But she wasn't born gay, so how can I believe someone ells who say they are?

I can certainly understand your confusion based on this situation. With hindsight, your sister's overidentification with the being gay was based on the past problems she had encountered. If one identifies being gay after years of apparently no distress around being straight, it must be determined whether it was all a ruse, or if something occurred in order to be clear on ones sexual orientation.

I am not speaking from that POV, as I have already made clear that there are (at least) 2 different origins for homosexuality: Transsexuality and trauma, neither of which are "normal, natural and healthy".

If we get into this extensively, it should (and probably has been) an entire thread unto its own. In brief:

1. Normal: the cycle on a washing machine
2. Natural: it occurs in nature, therefore is natural
3. Healthy: not sure what you mean, but since homosexuality is not a disorder, its' behaviors are as healthy or unhealthy as heterosexual behaviors depending on the participants.

If we are talking about behaviors due to a trauma, then the trauma needs to be addressed.

I have yet to see the name of that gay gene.......

I agree completely. I also haven't seen the gene that makes watermellon my favorite food.

"We're also staking our lives on scientific research that at the moment is a crapshoot. . . . [W]hat if they discover that there's no biological basis to sexual orientation? Are we willing to promise that on that day, we'll give back any gay rights we've managed to win and march off to the psychic showers?"

—Lindsy Van Gelder, "The 'Born That Way' Trap," Ms., Vol. 1 No. 6, May/June 1991

Great quote. Agree completely.

Tolerate, yes. Accept, no.
Gays have my tolerance, but they can never have my acceptance, as homosexual behavior is contrary to the Abrahamic traditions to which I ascribe.

Fair enough and well stated. I think I get where you're coming from with this last statement. You have tolerance for the people, but the behaviors are against your belief system and you don't accept these behaviors as being OK (to you).