FollowUp 1: Opposition to Day of Silence

Friday 20 April 2012 is this year's Day of Silence, sponsored by GLSEN.  Why?

The National Day of Silence is a day of action in which students across the country vow to take a form of silence to call attention to the silencing effect of anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in schools.

That's the whole of it.  The rest of the details of implementation are not terribly complicated.  Students are directed to follow teachers instructions and speak in class if they are required to do so.

While you DO have a right to participate in the Day of Silence between classes and before and after school, you may NOT have the right to stay silent during instructional time if a teacher requests for you to speak. According to Lambda Legal, "Under the Constitution, public schools must respect students' right to free speech. The right to speak includes the right not to speak, as well as the right to wear buttons or T-shirts expressing support for a cause." However, this right to free speech doesn't extend to classroom time. "If a teacher tells a student to answer a question during class, the student generally doesn't have a constitutional right to refuse to answer." We remind participants that students who talk with their teachers ahead of time are more likely to be able to remain silent during class. Find more Lamda Legal advice here.

But that doesn't slow the lies and bigotry as 20 April approaches.  Here are four recent samples of opposition.

From a letter to the editor in Central Jersey

High school students across the nation (including a few Hunterdon Central High School students) will be celebrating the Day of Dialogue (April 19) that supports marriage between a man and woman (a creation ordinance in Genesis). 

The Day of Dialogue gives students another perspective to the Day of Silence (April 20), which is promoted by GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and receives a lot of support from high school administrators and faculty. The purpose of the Day of Silence is to promote the homosexual agenda — GLSEN encourages high school students to lobby for legislation supported by homosexual-advocacy groups. GLSEN also encourages the high school students to pressure school officials to promote gay friendly material and events.

It should be noted that the Book of Genesis does discuss creation and procreation but does not establish limits upon who can marry whom.

"Promote the homosexual agenda" in terms of the Day of Silence is opposing bullying.  There is no further agenda for the schools.  "homosexual-advocacy" is a silly phrase.  The LGBTQ Community does advocate for equal treatment under the law for all persons.  As sexuality is generally believed to be immutable, according to major medical and major psychological organizations, advocacy is for how we are treated.  Gay friendly is good.  Human friendly is even better.

Right Wing Watch has an excerpt from a radio dialogue with Truth In Action Ministries' Jerry Newcombe.

It’s something where they are basically taking a legitimate concern, which is that of bullying, and they are using that serious problem that does happen as an opportunity by which they will then promote and essentially indoctrinate children and expose children to the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle. Now bullying is wrong but so also is indoctrination into a deadly lifestyle and frankly homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle and that fact is withheld from the children.

Again, one cannot be indoctrinated into homosexuality.  Sexuality is immutable.  To put this in terms of religion, all humans are created in God's image and are acceptable.  If you don't like the "homosexual lifestyle" then don't live that way, but neither is there a single type of lifestyle for homosexuals nor is it their business to interfere in the lifestyle of others outside of their church.

The myth that "homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle" originated with debunked studies by Paul Cameron.  I am a healthy gay man in my 50s, unlikely by their rhetoric.  Giving false information to children is a direct defiance of the Bible's admonition against bearing false witness.

Mr. Newcombe continued with an inference that there is a link between Nazis and homosexuality.

It’s sad to see groups like GLSEN be accepted by the teacher's establishment and then allow the platform to go into the public schools and try and indoctrinate children. For example, they have something called the Day of Silence. Now they chose April 20 of all days to be the Day of Silence, I looked that up, I was like, ‘isn’t that Adolf Hitler’s birthday,’ I looked it up and sure enough it is Adolf Hitler’s birthday. I don’t think there’s a link there but how ironic. But they are using this day as a means by which to promote their lifestyle as if it is a positive thing.

It should be noted that the Day of Silence is generally on a Friday in April.  In 2011 it was on 15 April.  The link to Hitler is particularly ugly given the treatment of homosexuals by the Nazis.

Michael Brown, who I have repudiated before, wrote an article a week ago with his complaint.

But don't some schools already have generic, anti-bullying programs in place along with special, daylong events to highlight the destructive effects of bullying, a subject that should concern all of us? Of course they do, but that's not enough. GLSEN insists that a special focus must be put on LGBT kids, as if bullying a gay kid was worse than bullying a fat kid.

To the best of my knowledge there has not be a rash of fat kids committing suicide because of bullying.  It isn't that bullying anyone is worse than bullying someone else, but the problem of bullying LGBTQ students is real and exacerbated by the rants of Mr. Brown.  The attempt to diminish the importance of bullying that is sanctioned implicitly by religious organizations like Mr. Brown's is exactly why the Day of Silence is needed.

But there's more that takes place on the Day of Silence: A pro-homosexuality message is often sent to the students, with teachers and administrators frequently promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism over the course of the day. That's why thousands of schools (and not just students) officially participate in the event, with the explicit backing of GLSEN. What about other messages being introduced during the day to balance the discussion? Perish the thought.

Promoting?  Again, sexuality is immutable.  It is tolerance and acceptance that is encouraged by GLSEN and the Day of Silence.  Balance the discussion?  The balance to a message of not bullying would be what?  A message to bully?  Students who perish as a consequence of bullying is the symptom.  Mr .Brown is part of the problem.

The so-called Liberty Counsel, an organization explicitly connected with the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has a brief complaint about the Day of Silence.

The Day of Silence is not about tolerance or bullying. It is about pushing a sexual agenda. Students and staff who disagree with a radical sexualized agenda are demonized and made to feel like outsiders. Children should be afforded a rigorous education opportunity and not be forced to accept a radical sexualized agenda subsidized with tax dollars. Parents and lawmakers should take the time to learn about the extreme views of GLSEN and the intolerance promoted by the Day of Silence.

There is nothing "sexualized" about the Day of Silence.  This is a fabrication by Matt Staver, the head of Liberty Counsel, who elaborated in an article at One News Now.

The "annual student-led event" is described on the website as one that "brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment" in schools. But as schools face enormous pressure from GLSEN to support and promote this event, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel says administrators, teachers, parents and students should not be intimidated.

"This is not about tolerating any issue or person," he asserts. "It is about a radical and forced agenda of homosexuality that these [days] of silence are promoting, sponsored by the GLSEN organization -- and sometimes under pressure by the schools."

Fear quotes around annual student-led event, implying that others are in the lead, is typical of Mr. Staver's writings.  GLSEN provides materials to students and teachers who request them, it is not pushed from outside.  The idea that homosexuality is somehow forced is completely absurd.  Mr. Staver apparently cannot accept the truth so is making up lies.

The Day of Silence will occur.  As the anti-LGBTQ bigots see that they are slowly losing, that equality for all citizens is becoming a mainstream concept, they can be expected to step up their rhetoric.  The real homosexual agenda, to be allowed to live peaceful lives with equal legal status effectively to be ignored by hate groups like those cited above, is a long way off.  The harassment of students continues and the Day of Silence is necessary.  Perhaps one day it will not be.

19 March 2012, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

20 April 2012, FollowUp 2.

Humor: Day of Silence

I have written previously about opposition to the GLSEN Day of Silence.  This video speaks for, er, has a nice flair for presenting the message.  Nice job by Mr. Brown.  He calls this "cheesy"; and it is, but a little cheesy humor is a good thing.  As he wrote, 20 April 2012 is this year's Day of Silence.

FollowUp 1: Governor Chris Gregoire on Marriage Equality

Since Governor Gregoire's speech yesterday, the bigots are starting to object.  Not really a surprise.  Let's look at just two.  First, local to Washington State is Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Redmond’s Antioch Bible Church, a long-time gay marriage opponent, said he believes Gregoire’s endorsement is payback to the gay community who helped get her elected.

“I think she is going to do this because she has to. I think that she’s made promises to the community and the gay community to help her get into office in the first place,” said Hutcherson.

“I am a believer in the Bible. I am a pastor. I’m a man of the cloth, any way you want to say it. The Bible says that when something is wrong, you stand up against it and I can’t think of anything that the Bible says is wrong as being good for society if we go against it.” Said Hutcherson.

It should be noted that Governor Gregoire was first elected to her office in 2004 and is serving her second term as governor.  She does not intend to run for a third term.  The argument that this is a payback makes less sense than if she had something to offer donors in future terms in office.  Of course, if she made promises and is keeping those promises, that is something that the Pastor should approve.

The Bible says that many things are wrong.  Beyond the "Ten Commandments", the five books of the Torah have an additional six hundred and three commandments.  The Book of Leviticus that prohibits homosexuality also prohibits the eating of pork, shellfish, and catfish.  It prohibits wearing cloth made of blended fibers (like cotton and wool).  It prohibits tattoos.  When Mr. Hutcherson, the believer in the Bible, ever treats these other prohibitions similarly then, perhaps, he is worthy of more attention.

Second, local to Washington, D.C. is Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage.

"The people of this country believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman," Brown said in a telephone interview. "I expect the legislature in Washington state will stand up for this commitment and vote to protect marriage."

The same article, however, shows a somewhat different picture.

Polls show sharp national division on same-sex marriage, and the issue is still divisive in Washington, which tends to be split between a liberal coast, including Seattle, and a more conservative inland.

Slowly, more Americans are embracing the concept of equality.  Mr. Brown and Mr. Hutcherson are not shifting their beliefs, but the country is leaving them behind.  This is besides the fact that human rights and civil rights should not be subject to a popular referendum.  I should no more have the right to vote on your right to marry than you should have the right to vote on mine.

If you have not already done so, let me encourage you to read the full speech today by Governor Gregoire on marriage equality.  Her discussion of the side issues and concerns is extremely well done.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

4 Jaunary 2012, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

Repudiation: Bigotry of Michael Brown

Michael Brown is a so-called Messianic Jew (not a real religion ... if you believe in Jesus as God, you are not Jewish) and wrote a column posted yesterday at Town Hall with many lies about homosexuality and ugly words about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

On December 6th, in a speech in Geneva marking international human rights day, Secretary of State Clinton called for all nations to embrace the goals of LGBT activism, declaring that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” and that, “It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished.”

Ms. Clinton's speech was insightful and eloquent.  If you have not listened to or read her speech, please take the time to read it now.

Unfortunately, her speech, which was hailed by gay activists worldwide, was an exercise in hypocrisy, not to mention an insult to several billion people worldwide.

No, Sec. Clinton is not the hypocrite.  Any insult is due to ongoing violation of the rights of others, not insult to who a person is.  An important paragraph from Ms. Clinton's speech before returning to Mr. Brown's objections:

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

Again, please read the entire speech if you have not.  Sec. Clinton was careful to be respectful of all people.  Mr. Brown is insulted by his own choice, not her words.

She rightly stated that, “It is [a] violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave.” But this was only the tip of the iceberg.

Mrs. Clinton had the audacity to compare religious or cultural objections to homosexual practice to “the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation,” as if the religious and moral objection to men having sex with men is somehow equivalent to the Muslim practice of honor killings or the Hindu practice of burning widows.

So, what did Ms. Clinton say in context?

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

The comparison is direct and germane.  If Mr. Brown objects "to men having sex with men", then he should not have sex with men.  That was not the point of Sec. Clinton's comparison.

“In each of these cases,” she said, “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.” And she said this in our name, as Americans.

The cases are drawing a parallel to violence against women, murder, and slavery.  Yes, in our now as Americans.

She stated that “opinions [on homosexuality] are still evolving”, just as opinions evolved over time with slavery, and “what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.”

In other words, if you have an issue with the lewd sexual displays at your city’s gay pride parade, or if you’re not comfortable with a man who dresses as a woman using the ladies bathroom, or if you don’t want to see a kid raised by two lesbians and thereby deprived of having a father, or if you believe that God made men to be with women, then you are the moral equivalent of a slave trader or a slave owner.

No, those are not other words that have the same meaning.  First, those who are transgender are not "a man who dresses as a woman".  That would be a transvestite not a transgender person.  Second, children raised by parents of the same gender tend to do as well as those raised by parents of the opposite gender.  The problem of having "to see a kid raised by two lesbians" is Mr. Brown's problem, not a problem for that kid.  Third, moral equivalency is not in belief but in action.  Mr. Brown is welcome to believe what he wants, but denying human rights is where the moral equivalency to slavery is accurate.

All this (and more) came from the lips of our Secretary of State at the same time that President Obama issued a memorandum instructing government officials to “ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, and transgender persons” around the world. (The president’s memorandum is far-reaching and should be read carefully.)

Yes.  I wrote an article praising President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

There was an immediate reaction from African leaders, and the Christian Science Monitor noted that, “The enshrinement of equal rights for homosexuals into US foreign policy activities has drawn quick ire from African nations, with one senior figure saying the notion is ‘abhorrent’ across the continent.”

As expressed by Uganda’s John Nagenda, a senior adviser to the president, “I don’t like her tone, at all. . . I’m amazed she’s not looking to her own country and lecturing them first, before she comes to say these things which she knows are very sensitive issues in so many parts of the world, not least Africa.”

Considering that being homosexual is a criminal offense in Uganda, this reaction should not be a surprise.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton stated that America still had a way to go on the issue of “gay rights,” but it is sheer arrogance to claim that the religious and moral views of several billion human beings must change. Based on what criteria?

The criteria are human rights.  It is not arrogant to call for human rights for all humans.

By all means we should champion the equal protection of all human beings, regardless of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. But that is only a small part of our government’s agenda. The greater goal is the complete normalization and even celebration of everything LGBT, with the corollary removal of all opposition, be it in word or deed.

The truth be told, the modern gay rights movement is a fruit of the radical counterculture of the 1960’s, and it is grounded not in the civil rights movement (despite persistent claims to the contrary) but in the sexual revolution, a revolution for which we are still paying the price.

If Mr. Brown is correct and the call for equality for the LGBTQ Community is derived from the sexual revolution, that does not change the fact that human rights are for all humans.  Equality is for all, not just those acceptable to Mr. Brown's religion.

Mr. Brown goes on to claim that we, the United States of America, have enough moral problems that we should not be lecturing the rest of the world on morality.  He concludes.

While our country certainly has been a force for worldwide good in many ways, when it comes to sexual morality we should be hanging our heads in shame, not lecturing others.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech was a source of national embarrassment, not pride.

No, Mr. Brown, Secretary Clinton is a great and eloquent speaker.  We should be embarrassed by those Americans who encouraged Uganda to criminalize homosexuality.  Ms. Clinton has taken the first steps in righting a terrible wrong.  Shame on Mr. Brown for suggesting otherwise.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

FollowUp 3: California's SB-48

Here we go again.  Social conservatives are again trying to get rid of California's SB-48, The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act.  I wrote about the details of this law which mandates inclusion and respectful teaching of various minority groups.  There was an attempt to put a repeal of SB-48 on the November 2012 California ballot which failed.

Now Stop SB-48 is trying yet again to put a repeal of SB-48 on the November 2012 California ballot.

Capitol Resource Family Impact along with other pro-family individuals and organizations remain committed to the goal of reversing SB 48, California’s so-called “gay history” bill. Today, a broad coalition of sponsors filed an initiative with the California Attorney General designed to reverse the overreaching aspects of that legislation.

When he signed SB 48 into law this past July, Governor Jerry Brown rationalized his actions with the claim that “History must be honest.” But the bill he signed specifically required an incomplete and inaccurate presentation in all social science classes in our public schools.

No.  That was not just a rationalization.  There is no requirement that history be taught in an incomplete or inaccurate way.

Senate Bill 48 required curriculum that is positive toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other minority figures. But it also prohibited curriculum that reflects adversely on the same groups. The Los Angeles Times condemned the new law by noting, “Real history is richer and more complicated than feel-good depictions.”

No, that's not what the bill says.  It says that texts and instruction shall not contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

By way of a parallel example, a text can be critical of a church for instigating a particular war but cannot use that example in a way that reflects adversely upon members of that religion.  In specific, a text can cite the Roman Catholic Church as causing many deaths in the Crusades, but cannot do so in a fashion that reflects adversely on Christians or Catholics.

In contrast, the initiative presented today assures that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other minority figures are not excluded from inclusion in California curriculum while requiring accurate historical portrayals of all individuals.

No.  The initiative to repeal SB-48 removes the requirement of inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender figures as well as Pacific Islanders, persons with disabilities, and other cultural minorities.

Jack Hibbs, one of the sponsors, noted SB 48 simply went too far. “We all know that the issue of homosexuality is controversial. It is unacceptable to require that our schools shine a spotlight on this lifestyle on the one hand and then demand that history books and teachers censor shortcomings on the other.”

This is one of the reasons that SB-48 is so important.  Homosexuality should not be controversial.  People are whatever sexuality they are and it is part of who a person is.  If homosexuality is the course of study, then it is reasonable to look at shortcomings, but that is not what SB-48 is about.  It is about acknowledging that great people in history, like Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde, are presented as whole people including that each was a homosexual.  There is no need to slur homosexuals when talking about individuals who are of that group.

Kevin Snider of Pacific Justice Institute Center for Public Policy believes the proposed initiative provides an appropriate balance. “We drafted an initiative that responds to the perception that some want to ignore the contributions of certain individuals. This initiative prohibits history book exclusion of anybody based on their membership in a protected class. But it requires an accurate, historical portrayal of any individual.”

Accuracy is good.  There is nothing in SB-48 that prevents accuracy.  It prevents a lecture on the supposed evils of homosexuality when discussing historic figures who were homosexual.  Mr. Hibbs and Mr. Snider are upset because they cannot use history as a launching ground for religious-based bigotry in public classrooms.

They will have twice as many times to gather signatures this time as they had in their first petition attempt.  Despite what they say, this is about repeal of a bill that brings fairness and balance into textbooks and into history and social studies curricula.

The State of California has put up an SB-48 FAQ webpage.  I'm sure those who are opposed to equality will not both to read it.  Why let a short page of facts get in the way of a bigoted rant.

12 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

23 October 2011, FollowUp 1.

28 November 2011, FollowUp 2.

28 January 2012, FollowUp 4.

Repudiation: Renewed Calls for Abstinence-Only Sex Ed

Just two days ago I wrote in praise of an excellent study disproving the efficacy of abstinence-only sex education.  But facts do not appear to matter when religion dictates.

One News Now has the first part of an article by Michael Brown, the founder of a "Messianic" ministry.  (The purpose of his ministry is to bring Jews to Jesus).  Mr. Brown also has a long history of animosity toward the LGBTQ Community.

Skipping past the fiction (Mr. Brown admits he is making it up) at the start of the article, Mr. Brown writes

In October of this year, New York City announced an aggressive, comprehensive, and quite graphic curriculum that would consist of one full semester of sex education in 6th or 7th grade (meaning, beginning with kids as young as 11) and again in 9th and 10th grade. Yet the age of consent in New York is 17.

This means that these schools (along with thousands of other schools throughout the nation) are giving children practical instructions on having sex even though it is illegal for them to do so. (If my suggested drug analogy doesn't work for you, then think in terms of the schools teaching 12-year-olds about responsible drinking of alcohol, since later in life, it will be legal for them but to do so at their current age is currently illegal.)

Comprehensive sex education is what works.  Again, look back at the University of Georgia study.  It is not illegal for the schools to offer comprehensive sex ed.  What is not legal is for children to participate in sexual activity as they do not fall into the category of consenting adults.  Of course, pretending that all children will wait until they are adults to enjoy sex is a fantasy.

It can even be argued that, on some level, these schools fail to do everything in their power to prevent statutory rape, since in New York, it is "second-degree rape for anyone age 18 or older to engage in sexual intercourse with someone under age 15," and that is certainly what is happening with many of these kids. Either way, the activities are illicit, be they consensual acts between 13-year-olds or consensual acts between an 18-year-old and a 14-year-old.

No.  Informing students about sex is not the same as statutory rape.  Information helps students avoid rape and, if violated, empowers them to fight back later.

How, then, can the schools teach anything other than abstinence? Why are they teaching our children about "safe sex"?

Because ignorance does not work.  Comprehensive sex education has a better track record.

A New York health department report in 2005 revealed that one in ten youngsters reported having sex before the age of 13. As shocking as that statistic is, it also means that 90 percent of these kids did not have sex before that age -- begging the question: Why introduce them to all these sexually charged (and often sexually titillating) issues?

First, we are in agreement that ten percent of children having sex before the age of thirteen is shocking.  In fact, the problem may be even more serious that Mr. Brown discusses.  From page 3 of NYC Vital Signs, 2007, twenty-six percent of girls who became pregnant and boys who impregnated girls while underage had their first sexual experience before the age of thirteen.

The question is not whether to introduce children to sexual information but whether to give them appropriate information that may help them postpone sexual activity and pregnancy until they are adults.  In terms of titillation, sex education classes are not pornography seminars, despite whatever Mr. Brown might be thinking.

I am fully aware that many of these kids are anything but "innocent," being exposed to sexual issues a hundred different ways every single day, among their peers, through the media, and online. But I have no doubt that many of our schools could do a much better job of pointing them towards morality more than encouraging then to have "safe sex." (If you say that the schools have no business teaching our kids morality, why then are they teaching them immorality, or at the least, condoning immorality?)

Comprehensive sex education does not involve encouraging then [sic] to have "safe sex".  The premise of Mr. Brown's argument is flawed. 

Returning to the new curriculum being introduced in New York City, the New York Post reported that some of the workbooks include these assignments (as you read this, ask yourself if this will encourage or discourage teen and pre-teen sex; what follows is extremely graphic, even for adults):

- High-school students go to stores and jot down condom brands, prices and features such as lubrication.

- Teens research a route from school to a clinic that provides birth control and STD tests, and write down its confidentiality policy.

- Kids ages 11 and 12 sort "risk cards" to rate the safety of various activities, including "intercourse using a condom and an oil-based lubricant,'' mutual masturbation, French kissing, oral sex and anal sex.

- Teens are referred to resources such as Columbia University's website Go Ask Alice, which explores topics like "doggie-style" and other positions, "sadomasochistic sex play," phone sex, oral sex with braces, fetishes, porn stars, vibrators and bestiality.

The first three assignments make sense to me.  These should be understood as part of a whole, not as isolated assignments.  The combination of these activities help students to understand that just using a condom is not a guarantee of not creating a baby because condoms can break, particularly if used in conjunction with the wrong other materials or if worn incorrectly.  Learning about various risks is crucial to the health of our next generation.

I've only looked at the top page of Go Ask Alice, which features Q&A for students.  This means that if a student asks a question on a topic that offends Mr. Brown, they are likely to get an answer.  In the words of Columbia University, Go Ask Alice! answers questions about relationships; sexuality; sexual health; emotional health; fitness; nutrition; alcohol, nicotine, and other drugs; and, general health.

Is it any comfort to parents that the Department of Education still encourages abstinence as the best choice? As noted by child and adolescent psychiatrist Miriam Grossman in the NY Post article, "Kids are being told to either abstain or use condoms -- that both are responsible, healthy choices." She also notes "that the [text]books minimize the dangers that pregnancy can still occur with condom use, and that viruses such as herpes and HPV live on body parts not covered by a condom."

As an educator, I am well aware that if I prohibit students from doing something there will be rebels among my students who will do that which is prohibited because I said not to do so.  Again, the data shows that comprehensive sex ed is more effective than abstinence-only.  Ms. Grossman appears to be reasonable in an otherwise hysterical article at the NY Post.

According to a staggering report released by the Centers for Disease Control in 2008, at least one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease, which means that, at best, the schools are teaching the students how to have less risky sex, similar to playing Russian roulette with fewer bullets.

Sorry, Mr. Brown, you have it upside down.  Not empowering students with solid information is what is similar to playing Russian roulette.  Pretending that just telling students don't will suffice is foolish.