Stand on sex-ed courses disputed

Our society is made up of people both gay and straight and our children need to be aware that any sexual behavior has consequences both physical and emotional. Discussing the fact that there are both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, the proper use of birth control and how a baby is conceived in no way promotes anything but a well-informed child.

Liz Gayaldo, Silver Spring

In his July 11 letter (‘‘Sex-ed courses promote alternate lifestyles”), Bobby Cox expresses animosity toward the new sex education curriculum in county public schools, but he demonstrates an ignorance of what will be taught and what it means to have a homosexual orientation.

His misconceptions show why better education and better reporting is needed. Perhaps he does not know the curriculum in detail and does not read about scientific reports on sexuality.

The curriculum does not teach children perverse sexual acts or promote lewd behaviors. What it does do is acknowledge that some people have a homosexual orientation and live in same-sex relationships.

They often discover their sexual orientation at a very early age, just like heterosexuals do. Gay and lesbian people go on to raise families and lead productive lives in every career choice that one can imagine.

Why keep these facts hidden from students and marginalize and stigmatize a group of people when sexual orientation is not something we control any more than whether we are left-handed or right-handed? Why cause pain and loneliness for a child who fears talking about stigmatized feelings?

The whole point is that any student has the potential to become an adult capable of living in a happy, healthy adult relationship either gay or straight. Knowledge engenders respect from peers and self-confidence that the student’s feelings are natural for many well-functioning human beings.

The curriculum does not promote a lifestyle; it attempts to impart observable scientific facts about human behavior.

Ronald Livingston, Germantown

We’re all for free speech, and we recognize that reasonable minds can disagree on issues such as the appropriate content of our public schools’ curricula.

We applaud The Gazette for providing a forum for public debate. But, there are limits.

The July 11 letter, ‘‘Sex-ed courses promote alternate lifestyles,” added nothing of value to our public discourse — no novel idea, no original thought and no new perspective. Instead, it was hateful and intolerant.

The Gazette should decline to publish such diatribes, and focus instead on the publication of letters that inform thoughtful and intelligent discussion of these important issues.

Alan and Remy Freeman, Potomac