Keep nonscientific views out of sex-ed instruction

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Keep nonscientific views out of sex-ed instruction

E-mail this article \ Print this article

While I agree with the conclusion of the editorial on teaching comprehensive sex-ed in the public school system, I am disappointed with the content and tone (‘‘Expand public school sex-ed curriculum,” June 27).

I disagree that the school system has any obligation in a health class to point out the social reality that people disagree. Just as there is no place in the biology curriculum for discussion of creationism or ‘‘intelligent design,” there is no place in a health curriculum for discussions of theology, alternative moralities or any other non-scientific viewpoints.

The proposed new curriculum is based on science, reflected in the principles of our mainstream medical organizations. There is no argument between nature vs. nurture as a cause for sexual orientation, since all life is a finely tuned balance between nature and nurture.

Nurture in this debate is simply a code word for sin. What is morally correct is to acknowledge the biological diversity of sexual orientations, which includes heterosexuality and bisexuality as well as homosexuality. The curriculum also acknowledges the spectrum of gender identities, since it is a biological fact that all human beings have a gender identity.

It is about time this cutting-edge school system, a model for the country, has a health program that reflects the science that underlies human sexuality as well as the morality that welcomes all into the community with dignity and respect.

Dana Beyer, M.D., Chevy Chase

The writer is on the Equality Maryland board of directors and is executive vice president of Maryland NOW.