<Mr. Garrison>
First, you remove the condom from its package.
Then, you find out which way the condom rolls on.
Put it in your mouth…and apply!
While I basically concur with Miller’s response, I would go further and note that the original position was probably not political, at all. It was based on the societal presumption without any evidence. (Just as scientists in the 19th century presumed that Europeans were mentally superior to all other groups and just as the British, French, and Germans had lovely donnybrooks over which of their “races” was the most superior among the Europeans, so, too, early psychologists presumed that such “unnatural acts” as homosexuality were the result of illness.
The changes in the APA decisions, while I am sure that a certain amount of internal politics accompanied the reconsiderations, were the results of compiling 40 years worth of studies and then having a lare number of psychologists study those results and come to the conclusion that they did not support a finding of “illness”
Could there be a political component to the wording of the DSM-IV? Sure. But there appears to be no serious suggestion that the change in diagnosis was the result of outside groups lobbying for changes that were contradicted by evidence.
(As it happens, during one of the meetings to discuss the status of homosexuality in the DSM-??, there were protests being held outside the hall. However, there has been no serious evidence presented that indicates that the shrinks in the hall cared about the protests.)
Let me guess … these same relatives have also told you that one of the reasons they homeschool their children is that “the public schools are controlled by the teachers union, and principles can’t fire a teacher no matter how incompetant they are.”
Two things would immidiatly throw red flags to me about this. A) They’re not being forced to homeschool their kids, they choosing to homeschool their kids. B) The way it’s worded, they don’t sound happy about it. They also mention that they could sign something to prevent their kids from being taught this. So…hmmm…maybe they could just sign the thing and the kids would be exempt from that class.
We’ve lived in California, the Bay Area yet :eek: since my daughter was in 3rd grade. (She’s a high school senior now) and I can testify these insidious liberal laws are in effect and work. She double dated to the prom last year with her boyfriend and a gay friend of hers and his boyfriend. And no one objected. Shock. Horror.
Too bad the kids are going to be indoctrinated with hatred.
Actually, they just said Gray Davis – it was one of the savecalifornia.com pages I read that said it was liberals in the state legislature, and I used the term “Congressional” incorrectly, apparently, as my dictionary informs me that with a capital C it means the Congress of the United States, not a state legislature. My mistake.
So tell me, chorpler, what’s going to happen if one of your home-schooled inlaws’ kids turns out to be gay, and never learned that that’s an ok thing to be? Do you know what it’s like to be a kid, and to be taught that what you are is not normal? Do you know what the suicide rate is among gay kids? And even if your inlaws’ kids don’t turn out to be gay themselves, their lives will still be diminished by what they’ve been taught. Is that what you want for them?
Presumably, but obviously my in-laws don’t believe that homosexuality is a natural thing – they’re the type that believe it’s a choice that mentally ill people make, so to them it doesn’t matter what else their kids learn in school – if they learn anything about gay people at all, other than “they’re sick and wrong,” they’re going to complain about the school being in the grip of Satan and pull their kids out. :rolleyes:
Which is, I’m sure, something that they would find horrible and wrong and anti-God and blah blah blah. So my question is, is there any basis in reality at all for their claims that kindergarteners or elementary school students in general are being taught something non-negative about gays (even if their version of things is highly distorted and ridiculous) as part of the school curriculum, or are they just getting this from people who are making it up completely? Their source is apparently a co-worker of my brother-in-law, who, they say, “found out about it last week when his son told him what he did in kindergarten that day, and who was very upset about it.”
Well, I thought about putting it somewhere else, but I’m just looking for a factual answer about whether or not their claims have any merit at all. I figured that most SDMB members would share my outlook about it and not theirs, so it probably wouldn’t turn into a debate or a Pit-worthy flame fest. So far, that seems to have been pretty much true.
No, of course not. Frankly, I think their attitude is disgusting and … uh … what’s the word for something that makes you angry? … but it’s one that pretty much my entire family except for me shares, so I hear it a lot. Which is why I’m hoping somebody knows the facts – it sure would be nice to be able to say “The TRUTH of the matter is …” when we see them again tomorrow.
As for one or more of their kids being gay, well, that would probably be the best thing that could happen to them (the parents, that is), as it would force them to re-evaluate their views. Even though it would be pretty hard for the kid(s) to grow up in their extremely anti-gay extended family … but now I’m sort of getting out of GQ territory, so I’d better wrap this up.
Infuriating! That’s the word I was trying to think of.
I’m not sure how it’s worked in California, but everywhere I’ve been the local middle and high schools have had “family life” (or whatever local euphemism) as a default and given parents the ability to opt their children out rather than the other way around.
I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe it was different when your in-laws went to school, but that it’s changed in the interim and like so many parents they haven’t paid one whit of attention to the local school system until it does something they get their panties (um, boxers for the husband. big, manly boxers) in a bunch over. Of course, they then blame the change on the convenient scapegoat.
That’s the way it works here too, but nothing in elementary school.
Well, the in-laws are about same age as me – mid-to-late 20’s now – and my sister-in-law (my wife’s twin sister, actually) went to the same schools I did. Her husband went to different schools but they were in the same school district and followed pretty much the same curriculum. They’re claiming that things are now very different in California than they were in Nevada when we were in school, which is what I doubt.
Gay Sex Ed is obviously Big Gay Al’s cousin from California! 
[quote=mks57=What about the APA’s previous position, that homosexuality was a mental disorder?
Which position was based on science and which position was based on politics?[/quote]
Well, sir, my distinct impression is that both were founded on the science of the time they wre adopted – new discoveries in psychology indicated that it was not, in fact, a mental disorder, so they changed their standards.
I know it would be absolutely wonderful in some quarters to “prove” that it was done under political pressure – but that proves not to be the case.
I can tell you that in 1983 or so, sex ed in my California public school was taught in 5th grade and pretty much consisted of information about periods and other puberty-related bodily changes. There were no permission slips required - anyone who wanted to opt out would have to make a special request.
In California, the system is “opt-out” if you have objections to the curriculum. It has been this way for years. As soon as I can get ahold of a friend who teaches 5th grade, I’ll post the exact details of elementary education in this area.
In my district “Ed For Bed” is taught for a semester in 9th grade. This is the “cap course” for all the lessons taught previously at different grade levels. Nothing very radical in the curriculum…definately no “GO be gay!” propaganda.
Well, a question remains unanswered: what was the policy when you went through school? Did one’s parents opt one in or out?
Further, would it be possible to get the name of the county you’re talking about in CA? That could help track down the local school district and go right to the source.
My take on it is that they were both based on science and they were both based on politics. Several people have replied in this thread that both decisions were based on the science of the time. It seems to me that you can’t entirely keep the politics out of any of these sorts of decisions. Granted, some changes in APA definitions are probably mostly a matter of new scientific knowledge, but in this case I’m pretty sure that politics had to play a role in the initial definition and in the change in definition. At the same time, I imagine that there was a certain amount of science (i.e. studies and stuff) to back both decisions up.
This is certainly my opinion, and I really have no knowledge of the actual process involved in establishing the definition of homosexuality as a mental disorder and then changing that definition. I am only guessing and making assumptions. However, bearing that in mind, I don’t think I am completelly off-base.
As to the OP, I wish I had specific knowledge on this, but I don’t. I know that when I was in school, back in the 80s and 90s in Washigton State, I’m pretty sure you had to opt out of sex-ed rather than opt in. Also I had sex ed when I was in grade school. I don’t remember exactly when, but it was some time between 3rd and 6th grade. I did go to an alternative program for these grades, but it was contained within the public school system, so it’s quite possible that the kids in the regular school also had sex-ed around this time. The program had a lot of parent involvement and since this was around the time when people were starting to hear about AIDS, when we had sex-ed a lot of parents got an education along with us. They wanted to know the latest information about the risks and dangers of AIDS since it was still so new.
Opt-out, IIRC – but this was for 7th grade sex ed, the basic “puberty changes and reproductive system overview” class that mentioned nothing at all about having sex. And it mentioned nothing at all about sexual orientation.
There was some kind of “maturation seminar” you could take your kids to, separate seminars for boys and girls, in 5th grade after school one day, which basically covered the same stuff (although I do remember the guy saying “And guys, don’t play with yourselves … it will mess you up.” after the seminar was over and everybody was leaving).
They live in San Pedro.
My frienf taught grade one and they had sex ed. Basically, it was body parts, 2 mommies were okay and where NOT to be touched. Because of this, she discovered a sexual abuse case.
Which is why some parents don’t want their kids to take sex ed classes in school.
And I just want to note that nothing in the previous sentence is to be construed as accusing the OP’s in-laws of sexual abuse.
Saying psychology is a science is like calling art a science; it’s an art. Without leaning one way or the other, what’s “scientifically correct” today won’t be correct tomorrow. Then it will be correct again in a couple weeks.
We’re always dealing with opinions when it comes to psychology and psychiatry. And of course opinions always involve politics. Okay, my statement’s not very scientific; it’s common sense. Agree with me or not; I don’t care. In many repsects, “hard science” is very much an accord of opinions. But at least there’s more empirical evidence one way or the other (then again, not: look at Darwinism vs. creationism).
Mostly the people that believe in Darwin believe in the psychologists. But we’re not all so facil. Both have a lot of good data both for and against. But before anyone makes me feel guilty for feeling one way or another, well fuck you and mind your own fucking business. Oh, that’s not pit-worthly, 'cos I’m not directing it at anyone in particular. It’s meant more of a statement to shock you to get you to re-read what I wrote.