33 Comments

• 1. winnowhead  |  September 16th, 2008 at 2:57 am

  Blah, blah, blah. The crazy libruls want the kiddies to learn how to give safe fellatio to each other.

  For crying out loud, get off your ridiculous high horse. You regularly apply sinister motives to liberals for any various issue.

  But this attack is false, period. Whether you think evil Planned Parenthood has anything to do with it or not.

• 2. Observer20  |  September 16th, 2008 at 5:27 am

  If we look at the bill, then indeed, it does support sex education for children in the K-5 area. Perhaps people are misinterpreting McCain’s ad when he says talk about “sex” to 5-year olds.

  As for the motivation of Obama voting for this bill…it’s really hard to say. He may have wanted to just apply the sex offender knowledge classes and was against the rest, but didn’t want to or believe he could succeed in editing the bill in the Senate, so he just voted for it and disregarded the rest. We can look into this with further scrutiny if we need to, but the two things that are relevant are that 1) the bill supported limited sex education of a somewhat involved kind to elementary students, and 2) Obama supported the bill.

  If there’s one thing I’ve learned about politics, it’s that there are so many bills that both have good aspects and bad aspects that regardless of how you vote, one can often be criticized for it, even if it wasn’t their intention to support another part of the bill. That’s one reason why pork-barrel legislation and hidden agenda legislation is so dangerous.

  winnowhead,

  From what I perceive, it’s not so much that they have an evil agenda, but that conservatives do not believe liberals are in line with the rest of the nation on moral values. Their intentions may be pure and they may believe that it’s important for elementary students to learn about their genitals and masturbation, but that doesn’t mean conservatives can’t attack them for being out of touch on values.

  And liberals are, of course, free to label conservatives as kooks and authoritarians who bitterly cling to guns and religion.

• 3. kmg  |  September 16th, 2008 at 8:22 am

  Observer20,

  People are misinterpreting McCain because that was his intent. The bill mandated what topics would be included in a sex ed class if a school district provided sex ed. It also said that all sex ed would be age appropriate, allowing the district to remove topics that were not age appropriate. No one would teach 6 year olds how to properly use a condom or the pluses and minuses of various forms of birth control and that was not the intent of the legislation. It also had an opt-out provision for parents of children at all ages. Yet, McCain wants us to believe kindergarteners would be taught how to put a condom on a banana when he says Obama wants to teach children about sex before they can read. That is a lie and he was properly called out for it.

  Now, we can argue at what age more comprehensive sex ed should be taught. Is 6th grade early enough? For some it may not be. I remember reading a news story the other day about a 10 year old who just gave birth. She was impregnated by a family member. Could education in how to protect yourself from sexual predators have helped? Could a basic understanding of human physiology have made her realize that she may become pregnant and led her to seek help? Maybe. I think school districts should have the latitude that was in the bill to begin introducing topics at ages that their experience within their district tells them is appropriate.

• 4. js  |  September 16th, 2008 at 8:32 am

  please kmg, since you are so familiar with the issue, document for use where it states what you said in this bill…you know…the part that says someone can make that choice…show us where it directs them to withhold inappropriate information for kindergardeners…

  as far as im concerned…nobody should have an “option” to teach kindergarden kids about sex in thier class room…not one single book, not one single paragraph…not one single word…

  so document in that bill that obama signed his name to that directly protects kindergardeners from perverts…

• 5. Retired Spook  |  September 16th, 2008 at 8:33 am

  If there’s one thing I’ve learned about politics, it’s that there are so many bills that both have good aspects and bad aspects

  Observer, the same thing could be said about Planned Parenthood. I don’t personally think it is an inherently evil organization. They do some good things and some not-so-good things. They’re highly agenda-driven.

  My wife and I have a good friend who is the chancellor of a small college. In her younger days she was director of the local Women’s Health Organization whose main sponsor was PP. She finally left that position when she came to the realization that the good that PP did was overshadowed by the fact that they were basically a broker/agent (IIRC, her word was “pimp”) for the abortion industry.

  Our youngest daughter, unbeknownst to us, became sexually active as a junior in high school. Even though my wife and I had provided sex-related information starting at what we thought were appropriate ages (around 9 or 10, IIRC), we didn’t provide her with a “how-to” curriculum. As we found out later, Planned Parenthood did. Unfortunately, the information from PP didn’t prevent her from getting pregnant at 17. She miscarried at 11 weeks, which even she admits now was a blessing. Her daughter (my granddaughter) is now 14, and my daughter is bound and determined that she not make the same mistakes, and that includes talking with Planned Parenthood behind her parent’s backs.

  For crying out loud, get off your ridiculous high horse. You regularly apply sinister motives to liberals for any various issue.

  Winnowhead, I suppose there are Conservatives who post here who do so from atop a “high horse”. I’d like to think I’m not one of them. There are also those here who DO think that Liberalism is inherently evil — I do not. I think there are three basic problems with Liberalism, or as it has evolved in the last 30 years or so, Leftism. The biggest single shortcoming of Leftism is that it values effort over results. Second, it is almost completely ignorant of the law of unintended consequences; and third, it largely ignores any mention of personal responsibility and accountability. I have a number of other disagreements with Leftists, but those are the three main ones.

• 6. js  |  September 16th, 2008 at 8:40 am

  what really got me in that sex ed bill was what they lined out….and removed from the statute above and beyond that they added k-5 grades for sex education….

  (2) Course material and instruction shall teach
  honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.

  (3) Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage.

  (4) Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of unwanted adolescent pregnancy.

• 7. kmg  |  September 16th, 2008 at 9:35 am

  js,

  Where parents can opt out:

  “(d) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course on HIV or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in the course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of the pupil.”

  Where school districts can modify content:

  “(2) All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”

  “(a) If any school district provides courses of instruction designed to promote wholesome and comprehensive understanding of the emotional, psychological, physiological, hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life, then such courses of instruction shall include the teaching of prevention of unintended pregnancy and all options related to unintended pregnancy, as appropriate to the various grade levels; and whenever such courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K through 12, then such courses also shall include age appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.”

  And the passage that replaced the abstinence part that was removed:

  “(b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV when transmitted sexually.”

  But, since you posted deleted paragraphs, you already knew that, didn’t you?

  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

• 8. Observer20  |  September 16th, 2008 at 10:14 am

  kmg,

  I didn’t really interpret it that way myself, but I can see how one can believe that the add was supposed to distort the message.

  As to what age is appropriate…that’s really a tough choice that I don’t think any of us have the ultimate authority to decide. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable for parents to want to shield their children from content they find objectionable. But at what age is it morally permissible to teach a child about vital sexual knowledge? Furthermore, when taught, would this information really help them, or would it mostly be ignored, or worse, somehow distort their minds? My opinion is it varies from person to person, although I do think kindergarten age is too young. They say a child can’t truly distinguish right from wrong until about the age of seven, so at the absolute minimum I’d say second-grade should be where any curriculum, be it sex-ed or sexual predator safety courses, should even be considered. However, my superego tells me that that is too young as well, and the youngest age should be around ten.

  Retired Spook,

  I actually think that most causes have good intentions, it is just many of them suffer from faulty logic or extreme personal bias. And also I often wonder if I’m falling into the trap of moral equivocation when I start thinking this way. I think the main point we have to take away from this is that we should give any program the benefit of the doubt on its aims, but be prepared to call it out on special interests or any personal corruption inside those causes.

  And you bring up a good point. Educating people does not necessarily mean they will listen or apply those lessons in real life. It’s a conundrum that nobody really knows how to solve completely. Who is to say that this knowledge will help elementary students? If only there was a way to test this program on a group of willing students before opening it to the public, we could tell a bit better, although I think we may have to monitor them for quite a few years to see if any residual side effects appear in their adult lives.

• 9. David B. Schmidt  |  September 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

  In agreement with RS and with respect to this issue and two of his (RS) comments that apply “Second, it is almost completely ignorant of the law of unintended consequences; and third, it largely ignores any mention of personal responsibility and accountability.”

  Why couldn’t the law have been written as an opt-in in lieu of an opt-out? Might have to get the parents engaged first? Against liberals “rules 2 & 3″ as posted by RS.

• 10. js  |  September 16th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

  lets see then…the bill repeats specific words…”Course material and instruction shall….”…being an afirmation or… requirement… of specific material…but the reality is…it does not contain one iota or hint about what is “not” age appropriate for kindergarden children…leaving a vague hole in “judgement” by whom? a closet pedophile or homosexual that gets elected to a school board…no…the statement “age appropriate” is no protection for kindergarden school children…”then such courses also shall include age appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS” the key word…”shall” is n ot an option..but a requirement…that such instruction be included…to kindergarden children…if any instruction is given…at all…and such determination as to if the instruction is given…is vague…with absolutely no requirement that parents are actually notified…to excercies thier “opt out” ability…leaving the whole mess in a grey area…to be determined by the sole discression of school boards? or…individual teachers…

  so no…this does not protect kindergarden kids from perverts…as a matter of fact…it provided protections in law to protect the right of teachers who actually want to push sex on kids…because of the stated requirements in statute…that if “any” teaching on sex (or..homosexuality) is given…then they are required (shall) to include “age appropriate” information “on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS”…

  so in essence…the absence of any descriptor identifiing inappropriate content for kindergarden children and the requirement of content to be taught “if” any is taught at all leaves it right where mccain said it was…

  not to mention that any sex ed for kids under 10 should include an “opt in” and not an “opt out” clause requirement….

• 11. Moveoff  |  September 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

  Sex education has been obliterated by idiot controversy in this country.

  If we ran our anti-drug educational programs the same way, half the country would be entirely ignorant and the other half would receive anti-drug literature that carefully omits all mention of alcohol and tobaccco.

  By conventional wisdom, merely mentioning the existence of drugs to kindergarden-aged children is a tacit encouragement for them to shoot heroin and smoke crack.

• 12. Ricorun  |  September 16th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  Sex education has been obliterated by idiot controversy in this country.

  I wouldn’t limit the comment to sex education. There seems to be a distrust, and a devaluing of, all education.

• 13. kmg  |  September 16th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

  js,

  “…leaving a vague hole in “judgement” by whom? a closet pedophile or homosexual that gets elected to a school board…”

  Thank you for the funniest thing I’ve read all day! I was not aware of the closet pedophiles out there trying to take over school boards. Of course, militant homosexuals could infiltrate Congress and the White House, then pass a law requiring you to play catcher once a week. Possible? Theoretically, yes. Probable? Not in the least.

  BTW, pedophile does not equal homosexual.

• 14. js  |  September 16th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

  i can understand how funny things are to you…its best to be ignorant than responsible….

• 15. js  |  September 16th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  Gay press promotes sex with children

  Baldwin says his research not only “confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals,” but it found that “the mainstream homosexual culture” even “commonly promotes sex with children.”

  “The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality,” Baldwin wrote.

  During his research, he also found:

  The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”

  In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”

  Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”

  In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a “Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.

  Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

  I guess your ignorance is by choice, because the truth is so easy to find…

• 16. js  |  September 16th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

  looks like your theoretic situation is real though:

  Democrats Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin are the only open homosexuals serving in Congress. They have joined with Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and 50 other Democrats to create the House Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says it is a sad day when Congress enshrines official promotion of sexual immorality.

  “How interesting that we now have a homosexuality, transsexual caucus – I guess you could call it – at the congressional level. It’s just unbelievable that there are this many congressmen who are promoting homosexuality and transsexual perversion,” LaBarbera laments.
  Democrats Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin are the only open homosexuals serving in Congress. They have joined with Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and 50 other Democrats to create the House Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says it is a sad day when Congress enshrines official promotion of sexual immorality.

  “How interesting that we now have a homosexuality, transsexual caucus – I guess you could call it – at the congressional level. It’s just unbelievable that there are this many congressmen who are promoting homosexuality and transsexual perversion,” LaBarbera laments.

• 17. js  |  September 16th, 2008 at 10:56 pm

  but then again, its not a topic about sodomites…is it..

  its about protecting children…a far more noble cause than defying the lies of homosexuality…the future will tell its tale…whether we act to protect the children or not…it tells a tale about us…what we do today is what tomorrow is made of…in the absence of action…we have nothing but hope..and hope with out anything for the sake of hope…is empty…just like obama is…so the truth is on our side…pass it on…it will never change….

• 18. Blogs For Victory »&hellip  |  September 16th, 2008 at 11:51 pm

  [...] September 16th, 2008 at 11:51pm Matt Margolis We’ve already pointed out that the McCain ad accusing Barack Obama of supporting sex education for kindergarteners was in fact true… [...]

• 19. What?  |  September 17th, 2008 at 12:08 am

  Mark writes,
  “On can try to spin this as much as one likes, but the bill clearly provided for sex education for kindergarten - including instruction in how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.”

  No, it didn’t. It said that all sex ed courses would include AIDS education. It did not require that sex education be taught to kindergarteners.

  Also, when did you learn about sex, Mark?

  I learned about sex when I was in kindergarten. My teacher sat us down and explained where babies came from. This included a basic explanation of sex. Like it or not, little kids are inquisitive and want to know about where they came from. Should we lie to them until they are in sixth grade?

  You talk as though the teacher gives a live demonstration. This is not how it works.

  http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-Come-Peter-Mayle/dp/0818402539/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221624053&sr=8-1

  Note the age level this booked was written for.

  The bill, of course, does not require a kindergarten teacher to talk about AIDs because the bill states AIDS need only be taught in a comprehensive sex ed class. A kindergarten teacher talking about reproduction is not a comprehensive sex ed class.

  My burning question to you is: Have you ever met a liberal? If you have, who is this person that has woefully misinformed you about our childrearing techniques among other things?

  My next question is: How do you function in everyday life given you believe half of this country wants to teach kindergarteners to have sex? You must spend each day exasperated at the the lunacy you imagine exists.

• 20. Jeremiah  |  September 17th, 2008 at 12:45 am

  What?,

  It’s not so much that liberals want to teach kindergartners about sex … it’s that they don’t emphasis the need for waiting until marriage is accomplished.

  So, we then have to ask the question - Why would teachers want to teach about AIDS when they don’t want to teach the children to wait until marriage?

  Teach the children what is right, and they won’t have to worry about getting AIDS!

  Still yet, the teachers want to go right on and teach the irresponsibility.

  Not only that, but they want to teach them to be fagots. I hate to say that, but it’s the honest to goodness truth … Teachers are teaching children that homosexuality is “okay” … My goodness, how can the people collective put up with such a worldview???????????????

  We’ve got to put a stop to this, or this country is going to lower, and lower, and lower, until pretty soon some other country will move in and take over, and the people that once inhabited this land will be but a distant memory, and it’ll be either under Sharia Law or Communist China.

  We’ve got to get back to the foundation that this country was built upon, the belief in RIGHT and WRONG. Start re-implementing the Death Penalty in all fifty States, and whenever or wherever an injustice such as pedophilia or rape is found, pour the juice to ‘em.

  We HAVE to have a system of justice so that people understand that WE DO NOT PUT UP WITH CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR! PERIOD!

  The first and most important step, however, is in getting liberalism OUT of school. Children need to be able to open their Bible in science class and be able to share the TRUE hope that America’s future depends upon to survive as One Nation, Under God!

• 21. Mark Noonan  |  September 17th, 2008 at 1:02 am

  what,

  It doesn’t say that - though, nice try at spinning it away.

  As for me, I had sex ed in the 6th grade, though I had some parental instruction prior to that - the most important thing about sex ed to a bunch of 12 year old boys was that it told us, with precision, what our urges were urging us towards. 25 or so little lightbulbs flashed in 25 twelve year old minds - and as the education was “value neutral” there was nothing in there to tell us that it might be better if we didn’t have sex at the age of 12. Given that this was in 1977, I can only imagine what is taught in sex ed classes these days.

  Kids are, indeed, inquisitive, but only about what is placed before them - there is no need, in a rational society, to teach pre-pubescent children about sex. We, unfortunately, live in an irrational society - but being set in such circumstances doesn’t make me feel like going along with it. I’d rather we got to be a rational society - and we can start by saying that sex is off limits, in any way, shape or form, in kindergarten.

  And, of course, the most important thing here is that Obama did, indeed, back a bill which had provisions for sex education in kindergarten. McCain’s ad is true, Obama is wrong.

• 22. Obama in 2007: Sex Ed For&hellip  |  September 17th, 2008 at 1:32 am

  [...] We’ve already pointed out that the McCain ad accusing Barack Obama of supporting sex education for kindergarteners was in fact true… [...]

• 23. What?  |  September 17th, 2008 at 1:38 am

  Noonan,
  Read the text.

  Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV. (emphasis added)

  It does not mandate sex ed for kindergarteners. It says sex ed classes will include AIDS education regardless of the grade. The school distict is the ultimate decision maker as to what grade the class is taught.

  then there is this:
  “Kids are, indeed, inquisitive, but only about what is placed before them - there is no need, in a rational society, to teach pre-pubescent children about sex.”

  Sex is placed before them every day. They see members of the oppostie sex. Kids will want to understand the difference. They will want to know why that difference exists. They will want to know what makes a woman pregnant.

  I find it bizarre that you feel no need to give some explanation to these children. Sex is not just a a part of life, it is the source of life. Shouldn’t our young children have some knowledge of it prior to the point when they start wanting it? Or do you just want them to believe the stork dropped them on their parent’s doorstep?

  Mark, I have another request. Please share your thoughts on Jeremiah. Does it bother you that someone with his views has attached himself to the conservative movement.

  As a member of the center left I cringe every time I hear one of the few on the far left who actually speaks of turning the U.S. into a Communist utopia. Do you do the same when Jeremiah says the following:

  “Children need to be able to open their Bible in science class and be able to share the TRUE hope that America’s future depends upon to survive as One Nation, Under God!”

  or

  “Not only that, but they want to teach them to be fagots.”

  I understand you are in the business of attacking liberals. Shouldn’t you also be in the business of convincing Jeremiah he is taking his views too far? He is certainly as damaging to this country and your movement as we liberals.

  I think you and I can agree that a political ideology that calls for the destruction of all those who hold other viewpoints is not one worthy of following. This website is, after all, a place where we debate our views and try to come to a concensus. We sometimes lose our civility but I don’t want to harm to come to you. I believe you don’t want harm to come to me. Jeremiah on the other hand I am not so sure about.

  He won’t listen to me or anyone else he believes to be a heathen. He may listen to you since you are a fellow Christian. I am not calling for a smack down, just a gentle nudge towards the center.

  To Jeremiah,
  My friend, you have to take it down a notch. Please, no one on this website is going to follow you when you speak in doomsday terms.

• 24. Obama In 2007: Sex Ed For&hellip  |  September 17th, 2008 at 2:06 am

  [...] We’ve already pointed out that the McCain ad accusing Barack Obama of supporting sex education for kindergarteners was in fact true… [...]

• 25. Jeremiah  |  September 17th, 2008 at 2:14 am

  What?,

  You and I, my friend, you see, are diametrically opposed in every way, as I want good for America, And the only way to do that, is to not give in in any way, shape, or form to the ideology that is liberalism, as liberalism, is not “liberalism” any more. So….I would suggest a change (as Obama has done for the past 20 months on the campaign trail) to something more fitting for the Democratic party….Oh, I don’t know, something like….Uuuuh, let’s see here…..how ’bout the Secular party of America…as the “Democratic” party is made up of a whole alphabetical soup of different theologies, but primarily opposed to Christian influence.

  The thing is, What, I could sit here all day and try to explain to you what it is that is wrong with your ideology, but your not going to open your mind long enough to allow some good to be absorbed into that sponge between your ears, because you’ve filled it with concrete and it’s dead set.

  So, the best I can do is hope that you will try to crack that concrete sponge and allow some light in.

  Now, I’m going to ask you a simple question, a yes or no question.

  Do you, or do you not want children to wait until marriage before having sex?

  And again, yes or no, I don’t want any of this, “But kids are going to have it anyway” …. Don’t want any of that.

  Just give me a simple yes or no answer.

  Go….

• 26. Mark Noonan  |  September 17th, 2008 at 2:17 am

  what,

  Once again, nice try at spin - but you’re starting to look a little foolish here.

  In the bill it refers to sex education for grades K-12…there shouldn’t be any sex education, at all, for kids who are less than about 12 years old…this bill allows for it in some form, and thus McCain is correct when he states that Obama backed a bill which calls for sex education in kindergarten.

• 27. kmg  |  September 17th, 2008 at 8:18 am

  js,

  With all those scary homosexuals in Congress, you better start stocking up on the KY. They’re coming to get you!

  And citing an article about Steve Baldwin in WorldNetDaily? Was Baldwin’s “research” published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, or was it just published by Pat Robertson’s diploma mill?

  This is what credible research looks like:

  Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?

  Objective. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children.

  Design. Chart review of medical records of children evaluated for sexual abuse.

  Setting. Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children’s hospital.

  Patients. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years).

  Data collected. Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

  Results. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.

  Conclusions. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.

  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41

  http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

• 28. js  |  September 17th, 2008 at 9:13 am

  here is a 3 part explanation of why your UC Davis study is equivalent to snake oil;

  Sodomy Decision Based On Fraudulent ‘Science’ (Human Events - Part 1 of 3) (August 14, 2005)

  Sodomy Decision Based On Fraudulent ‘Science’ (Human Events - Part 2 of 3) (August 14, 2005)

  Sodomy Decision Based On Fraudulent ‘Science’ (Human Events - Part 3 of 3) (August 14, 2005)

  http://www.drjudithreisman.com/articles.html

• 29. js  |  September 17th, 2008 at 9:31 am

  One chapter in particular, titled “Pederasty: An Integration of Cross-Cultural, Cross-Species, and Empirical Data,” has Temple University’s Bruce Rind Ph.D. praising the rampant child molestation that reportedly occurred in those societies, at one point citing evolution as supporting a pro-pedophilia worldview.

  At one point, Rind writes:

  Pederasty, or sexual relations between men and adolescent boys, is condemned in our society as an unqualified evil that maims and destroys. In ancient Greece, samurai Japan, and numerous other cultures, pederasty was seen as the noblest of human relations, conducive if not essential to nurturing the adolescent’s successful intellectual and physical maturation.

  http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46447

  more junk science from a certified PHd….just because it comes with the UC Davis name under it doesnt make it legitimate….

  and another reason to prevent this stuff from happening…something obama really doesnt pay attention too….

• 30. kmg  |  September 17th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  js,

  1. Your three-part series did not address what I cited, so it has not been proven to be the equivalent of snake oil.

  2. I provided two seperate cites. The one which I posted the excerpt of did not come from UC Davis.

  3. I’ve never heard of Rind and he was not cited in either of the studies I posted, but nice attempt at deflection.

  4. WorldNetDaily is not a peer-reviewed, scientific publication. Just because, or especially because, it comes from that site does not make it legitimate.

• 31. js  |  September 18th, 2008 at 8:53 am

  i can understand in your inability to understand basic concepts…let alone some that are a bit more advanced than you can grasp…resulting in foolishness like you posted in 30 above…but until you can grasp the simple points…its really not a viable form of entertainment for me…to slap around an ignorant stooge from the liberal side of the isle…who cant even think for herself….

• 32. What?  |  September 18th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  Well done, Mark.
  Ignoring Jeremiah makes you lose credibility.

  Again, the bill does not require sex educution. It leaves that decision to the school districts. You are spinning it to say Obama wants graphic sex education for kindergarteners. This is not what it says. It merely mandates STD education. Even if the bill said:

  Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

  Kindergarten sex ed classes would still be allowed if the school districts wanted them. You are asking the legislature to pass a law that bars all sex education in kindergarten. This is a stupid proposal because some degree of sex ed is taught in all grade levels and there likely was not problem with teachers teaching inapproproate material to kindergarteners warranting such a ban.

  Jeremiah,
  You are hate-filled.

  I will play your little game.

  I don’t care if people have sex before marriage. I did and I am fine just like the millions of others who have had sex outside of marriage. I newither support it or oppose it.

  I don’t want unplanned teenage pregnancies. I therefore support sex education which instructs teens on birth control and explains that not having sex is the only way to not have children.

  So you see, you have the question wrong.

• 33. kmg  |  September 18th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

  js,

  I post evidence and you post BS. When you can’t rebut the evidence you revert to a child-like state of name-calling. It’s no wonder you and Jeremiah are the only ones arguing your point. Birds of a feather.