# "Parental rights" my ass (sex ed) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 4, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373 "2005-05-04T14:42:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/101 "2005-05-06T15:21:36Z")
> [@](#): > > How did I miss this post before? Just spotted it myself. I blame **robertliguori** , for simulposting. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/102 "2005-05-06T18:18:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How did I miss this post before? > > Sounds like we’ve been debating a phantom. The course, as described above by our eyewitness, seems utterly unobjectionable. Only… [Here, the Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/05/AR2005050501189.html) says: > [@](#): > > The Montgomery County school superintendent called off the planned launch of a new sex education curriculum yesterday, hours after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against it. > . > . > . > The Revised Curriculum notes that ‘Fundamentalists are more likely to have negative attitudes about gay people than those with other religious views.’ The Revised Curriculum also paints certain Christian sects, notably Baptists, which are opposed to homosexuality, as unenlightened and Biblically misguided," [the judge]wrote. > > “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 AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically sound ground,” the order says. Now I’m confused. What did the judge see that **TwoTrouts** did not see? ---
**Author:** ![TwoTrouts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9adbd/32.png) [@TwoTrouts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwoTrouts)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/103 "2005-05-06T18:34:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now I’m confused. What did the judge see that **TwoTrouts** did not see? I’m just as confused. What I saw was fairly innocuous. I guess we will never know, as they are not going forward with this in the school system. I have to agree that throwing religion into a sex-ed curriculum is a recipe for disaster, especially during these times. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/104 "2005-05-06T18:38:38Z")
I notice the judge isn’t actually quoting anything but offering his own description of the material. I am not willing to take the judge’s word for it that the curriculum “paints certain Christian sects… as unenlightened and Biblically misguided.” That sounds like it may be a slanted characterization of the curriculum. I’d like to see what it actually says. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/105 "2005-05-06T18:58:57Z")
[The judge’s opinion](http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/CRC050505.pdf), including excerpts from the “supplementary material” of the cirriculum. ---
**Author:** ![TwoTrouts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9adbd/32.png) [@TwoTrouts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwoTrouts)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/106 "2005-05-06T19:05:23Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > [The judge’s opinion](http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/CRC050505.pdf), including excerpts from the “supplementary material” of the cirriculum. Thank you, **manhattan**. That clears up my confusion. The controversy actually erupted over the supplmentary material and not the video. FWIW, [here](http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/info/pdf/newhealth2.pdf) is a link to the description of the currcula we were given. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/107 "2005-05-06T19:08:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I notice the judge isn’t actually quoting anything but offering his own description of the material. I am not willing to take the judge’s word for it that the curriculum “paints certain Christian sects… as unenlightened and Biblically misguided.” > > That sounds like it may be a slanted characterization of the curriculum. I’d like to see what it actually says. The judge quotes directly from the curriculum in the opinion. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/108 "2005-05-06T19:31:27Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Just spotted it myself. I blame **robertliguori** , for simulposting. 😉 Hmph. This is why you hit ‘preview post’ and then scroll down the page before you submit. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/109 "2005-05-06T19:32:19Z")
OK, I read the material in the curriculum and just as I suspected, the judge is full of shit in his quoted characterizations. The curriculum does not say that some denominations are “unenlightened” or “Biblically misguided,” nor does it make any comment on which views are “theologically sound.” It only says that there is a diversity of opinion and that not not all Christians or Biblical scholars believe that homosexuality is a sin. That’s an objective fact. What’s the problem? It also stresses tolerance and compassion. I see no issue there. The judge seems to find it objectionable that the curriculm states that homosexuality is not a choice or a disorder but those are objective facts as well. I can’t see anything in the supplemantary material that isn’t objective fact and nothing it says about religion is an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/110 "2005-05-06T19:51:24Z")
[Cucumber-condom video online](http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/video.htm) > [@](#): > > Group fighting sex-ed curriculum posts district’s how-to footage…The video will be shown to all 10th grade students Hasn’t anyone thought of the kids? A cucumber? What’s the matter with using carrots? I guess it could’ve been worse had they chosen to use a chinese eggplant or zucchini. If the next generation of young males grows up feeling very inadequate - or the young female coeds develop into size queens, don’t say I didn’t warn you. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373/111 "2005-05-06T20:00:49Z")
I definitely don’t get how the judge reached the conclusion he did regarding the free-speech claims. As I understand it, his argument is that the curriculum materials are not viewpoint-neutral and are therefore an unconstitutional government regulation of speech. But regulation of _whose_ speech? Curriculum materials are regulations of what the teacher says in the classroom, and neither of the plaintiffs claim to be representing any of the teachers, just the students. So how do the plaintiffs have standing to claim that _their_ free-speech rights are being violated? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parental-rights-my-ass-sex-ed/302373.md?page=5)