Richard Cohen, M.A.
President, PFOX
July 6, 2005
Statement to the Montgomery County Board of Education
(Statement on behalf of a broader campaign with the religious-right Liberty Counsel, Warren Throckmorton, and a local group of religious conservatives opposed to comprehensive, abstinence-inclusive sex education in suburban Washington, D.C., public schools.)
My name is Richard Cohen. I am the Board President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, otherwise known as PFOX. The first thing I would like to do is apologize for any inconvenience and expense we have caused the Board of Education. We simply want our voice and views incorporated into the new sex education curriculum. We at PFOX believe wholeheartedly in Tolerance, Diversity and Equality for all people.
I want to thank you for including an awareness of homosexuality in the new sex education curriculum. We believe it is our moral imperative to protect and defend the right of all students, in particular those who experience same-sex attraction and those who may be questioning their sexuality. These students must be able to attend school in a safe environment. I know how important that is because I was the brunt of cruel remarks while attending high school.
Faggot, sissy, homo—I heard it all. No child should have to endure such things while trying to obtain an education. All students need to be taught how to respect one another.
I lived as a gay man for many years but always dreamed of a wife and children. Today I have been married for 23 years and we have three incredible children. And, for the past 15 years, as a professional psychotherapist, I have assisted hundreds of people in transitioning from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation. Therefore, I know personally and professionally that CHANGE IS POSSIBLE.
Regarding homosexuality, we at PFOX are Pro-Choice. We believe in everyone’s right of self-determination. The students themselves should get to choose whether they wish to live a gay life or to explore the possibility of changing from gay to straight. All we ask from the Board of Education is to NOT LIMIT THE CHOICES of our children in the new sex education curriculum. Please give the students ALL information about diverse views of homosexuality, and let them decide if they want to be gay or ex-gay. Both are OK. Please let the students decide for themselves. Thank you very much.
Wow Cohen acknowledging that gay students are singled out for harassment. That’s far bolder than Throckmorton’s generic and antiquated recent anti-bully curriculum.
Sadly Dan,I think that is “Cohen makes public statement” rather than acknowledging anything. The man is clearly bisexual, has a history of being controlling and abusive, and has a finding of professionally unethical behaviour hanging over his head. Should this man even be listened to; or simply tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail?Let’s not beat around the bush here — PFOX just nominated Peter Sprigg from FRC as their person on the Montgomery sex-ed board. FRC, for those who recall, made submission jointly with FoF when the Supreme Court decided Lawrence v Texas. FRC asked that homosexuality remain a criminal act. I guess that’s what they mean by respecting all people, and I guess that means they think sending consenting adults to gaol is outside a definition of harrassment.Although singularly unqualified as a health and sexuality expert — therefore, what is his real role? — Peter Sprigg, along with his flunky Dailey, has authored or directed a series of “research publications” that assert a direct link, among so much else, to the sexual abuse of children. When Sprigg is not attempting to derail anti-harassment measures in schools, he’s busy dredging up every stealth candidate for the role of the new Paul Cameron.When harassment based on sexual orientation is explicitly banned, schools staff and students are inevitably trained that the reason that such harassment is wrong is not because all harassment is wrong or because all people should be treated with respect, but because “there is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian.”Peter Sprigg has even publically spoken against gay men and women themselves making decisions about their own lives (QED Lawrence). If he cannot respect that of adults, what would he therefore be suggesting is presented to children within the school system?we oppose what is sometimes called “the gay agenda.” It is an agenda that demands the full acceptance of the practice of homosexuality–morally, socially, legally, religiously, politically, and financially. Indeed, it calls for not only acceptance, but affirmation and celebration of this behavior as normal. It even demands that homosexuality be seen as desirable for those who desire it. This is “the gay agenda”–and we are against it.His body of work for the past few years is too large for a post here (and, frankly, I’m not going to do the reader’s work for them!) Take the time to read the views of the person that PFOX feels is their most suitable candidate for a School Board committee.I remain firmly of one over-riding view — the teaching sex education and the teaching of basic rules about civil behaviour does not require a noxious anti-gay view be included. To the contrary, by including them the very lessons themselves are rendered useless.Oh, now there’s a thought. Perhaps that is the real aim?[Now… let’s see what the XGW posting gnome does to me today… preview, post, vanish! 🙂 ]
Here, however, is something well worth mentioning everytime PFOX bangs on about “people can change” in Montgomery…Free Speech Welcome, Virulence on Gays Is NotAfterall, don’t The Children deserves to hear all the views???And coming up soon…”Quantum Physics: If Heisenberg is uncertain, why is he even mentioned in schools?” by, urgh, I don’t know, perhaps Regina Griggs as author?That was for raj 🙂
How would high school students who are not even old enough to experience the “gay lifestyle” become “ex-gay” in the first place?
Richard Cohen is obviously trying to be as diplomatic as possible, but people need to realize what the definition of “ex-gay” truly means, and see that it has no place in a sex education curriculum. It is still an issue of wide debate and controversy and including it in a sex education curriculum is ludicrous. It doesn’t have anything to with the subject. You would end up with numerous students debating about it and becoming confused. They’ll be straying from actual sex education completely. Of course, I’m certain PFOX wish to present “ex-gay” material as solid fact so it won’t be questioned, and they know most would just accept the information at face value without thinking twice.
“Quantum Physics: If Heisenberg is uncertain, why is he even mentioned in schools?” by, urgh, I don’t know, perhaps Regina Griggs as author?
That was for raj 🙂
I’ll recognize your joke, but just to let you know, if you’re interested, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is an artifact of the Fourier transform. I could go on at length, but it would be boring to most people here. But, obviously, not to me. My undergrad and grad degrees were in physics.
On the broader topic, has anyone pinned down the actual numbers of the members of PFOX? It is obvious that PFOX is supposed to be an opponent to PFLAG, which seems to actually have members. It is completely unclear whether PFOX is nothing more than a “public relations” operation. Who is funding them? PFOX seems to be little more than a fraud.
Fourier transform — is that a new reparative therapy?Yes I know your background, so thought you’d understand the low-brow pun. I had just been wading through the “experts opinions” on the Recall, sorry CRC, site for Montgomery School district and thought that sort of paper about Heisenberg would be equally likely — as in, someone who doesn’t have a clue grabs the wrong part of something and turns it into an anti-something expose. And no, please do not go on at length — I had enough as an ChemEng. undergrad! :)Anyway, I am attempting to collect and sort a summation of PFOX. I do this type of snooping (sorry, analysis) for a living but it’s proving tedious. When dealing with a “public body” that proves too elusive all sorts of red flags pop up for me. Compare PFOX to PFLAG who will happily tell you almost anything except personally indentifying information.A broader snoop around PFOX is currently revealing only a core half dozen people — at best — some of which have more than one PFOX group under their wing. Any wonder they don’t organise rallies, but do roll out the same 2 or 3 people for a “presentation”.PFOX does, however, have a “mysterious” ability to pull in many more people from the usual outside suspects… i.e. FRC, Liberty et al. How such a small group could, of itself, pay for their public campaigns remains equally “mysterious”. I have not found they have the internal resources in either people or $, and my sarcastic nature is beginning to get the better of me.
Yes I know your background, so thought you’d understand the low-brow pun
Just to let you know, I did. It was funny.
As to the topic of this site, I wonder how “uncertain” the claims of ex-gay “cure” are. We’ll never know.
I’ve had email exchanges with David Williams, the parent who campaigned to have PFOX be included during a campus conflict on allowing a GSA.
He referred me to Chad, who is the young person that is the PFOX rep.
I had to inform Chad that what he and others who support the ex gay movement are promoting, is maintenance of social stigma and heterosexual privilege.
That ‘change is possible’ really means that PASSING is possible.
PFOX is heavily invested in religious or Biblical references or faith based Christian disciplines.
GLSEN, GSA’s, like PFLAG are non denominational and don’t exercise any religious preferences over another.
If anything, this alone is reason enough to reject PFOX. It’s forcing a religious agenda against young people’s choice to be secular and certainly a campus support group to be so as well.
I will forward these exchanges to anyone here that is interested.
I want to know if I was dealing with these people in the right way.
I don’t like people whose responses are a ‘Jesus dance.’
Which is basically a non answer and pretty much leads me to believe these people really think that a Jesus dance is sufficient protection against surgical questions aimed at their intellectual failures…if not moral ones.