Fact-Free "News" About Sex-Ed
WorldNetDaily, a theocon Internet "news" site whose start-up capital was provided by Richard Mellon Scaife, has published stories about how America is so morally depraved that "God [has] raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against" us; that it was the U.S. Air Force that actually shot down United Flight 93 on 9/11; that Valerie Plame's name was well-known even before Robert Novak's column exposed her CIA undercover status; and published an editorial claiming that males eating soy at a young age increases the chances that the child will be gay, and that soy's estrogen content will feminize a young boy.
So it's probably not too surprising that WND would publish the fact-free claim
, by the ultra-religious Thomas More Law Center, that the Montgomery County (Md.) Board of Education's choice of sex-ed curriculum is "inaccurate" in teaching that sexual orientation is "innate" rather than learned, and that anal sex is a viable sexual choice.
"This curriculum is full of factual inaccuracies and runs counter to sound educational policy," said Edward L. White III, trial counsel for Thomas More. "It should not be taught in the public school."
Of course, as is typical with these types of objections - although it may simply be poor reporting on WND's part - nowhere in the article is there one shred of scientific basis for why the curriculum is "inaccurate" - but lots of bluster from conservative religious types about why the curriculum is such a scandal.
Oh, WND reports that "pro-family groups" claim that teaching that homosexuality is "innate" is an "unproven theory" - but those people call evolution and global warming "unproven theories" too, so their track record on scientific reliability is a little suspect. Those same groups also criticize the curriculum for not warning the kids that anal sex carries an increased risk of contracting HIV - but oddly enough, they're also opposed to teaching the kids how to use condoms, an excellent barrier to HIV infection, so it's not as if they really have the kids' health uppermost in their rhetoric. And finally, they're crying about the curriculum labeling kids who "hold traditional religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality" as "homophobic."
There, I happen to agree with them: They should label those kids "bigots," which is exactly what they (and, likely, their parents) are.