Compare the recent public statements of two PFOX officials regarding public education, and one finds that PFOX can’t make up its mind whether to claim support for tolerance among people of different sexual orientations — or to declare sweeping trench warfare against anyone who veers from PFOX’s notion of straight-and-narrow.
During this comparison, keep in mind that PFOX was launched by the Family Research Council (chaired by James Dobson) in 1996, and that PFOX continues to rely on the Dobson organizations (Focus on the Family, FRC, and Exodus) for political support, marketing and fundraising assistance.
1. Richard Cohen, M.A.
President, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays
July 6, 2005
Statement to Montgomery County, Maryland, Board of Education
Source: Teach The Facts/a>
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. XXXgot, XXXX, 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.
2. Peter Sprigg
PFOX nominee to the Montgomery County sex-education advisory committee
From an article for the Family Research Council
Pro-homosexual activists also promote policies that forbid “discrimination” against students or teachers on the basis of “sexual orientation.”
However, singling out “sexual orientation” for special protection (along with the usual categories of “race, color, national origin, sex, and disability”) is illogical. The latter qualities are usually inborn, involuntary, immutable, and innocuous–none of which is true of homosexuality, despite the claims of its advocates.
Note the contradiction among PFOX’s public representatives:
Sprigg states that homosexuality is not “inborn, involuntary, immutable, and innocuous.” PFOX’s newly chosen representative says homosexuality is not “OK” at all, contrary to Cohen’s reassurance. Nor does Sprigg wish for schools to reflect tolerance, diversity, or equality for all. Sprigg’s article for FRC favors antigay discrimination; says that opponents of discrimination “recruit children” into homosexuality; and encourages lawsuits against any school that “teaches about homosexuality” to teen-agers.
Sprigg neglects to cite the presence of religion in most non-discrimination laws. Religion is not “inborn, involuntary, [or] immutable.” Does Sprigg support discrimination on the basis of religion? Does he believe that one’s choice of religion may not be innocuous? He doesn’t say.
As Teach The Facts notes, publications on PFOX’s recommended-reading list for teachers and students uniformly refer to gay persons as defective individuals needing to be “healed.”
In short, Sprigg and PFOX appear to be less tolerant than their president claims.
The question I pose is, why the issue of homosexuality even an issue to be discussed at school?”
When I had sex education at school – the focus was on prevention and information about STDs – with *REALLY* graphical photos showing what an STD can do.
Was their any talk about homosexual or sexual positions? of course not; people can access that information themselves – if someone is gay, they can see the school counsellor, who can refer the individual onto a gay support group.
Personally, for me, when we start having issues like what is mentioned in the article, it speaks volumes to the fact that schools are taking the eye off the ball, in relation to teaching, and instead, trying to fulfill the role as a parent – that shouldn’t be the focus of school.
Talking about homosexuality and sexual orientation is much different than talking about sexual positions. Is it not the expectation of the public to have the schools teach a full and proper education? Stating that homosexuality is same-sex attraction or behavior is definition. It is not pushing anything. In a health, psychology, or sociology class, it is appropriate and necessary to treat topics honestly and openly.
Also, in a health class, when AIDS is addressed, you must address risky sex issues such as anal sex.
You are wrong though about accessing information themselves. That is cruel and awkward. If someone has a question, it should be addressed. If the student gets online, he or she may find problematic and false info. If the student goes to a couselor, he or she may find disdain or no info (for your info, state schools can lose funding if a counselor talks to a student about homosexuality. When I tried as a student to ask the counselor about it, I was told we weren’t allowed to ask such questions). If the student calls a hotline, he or she may be turned away because of age (I was). Libraries may not have adequate books for info. For a gay student, finding out info about homosexuality can be difficult and frightening.
Finally, it is unfair to suggest that the school should not deal with such issues. Maybe the problem is not the schools. Maybe the problem is that parents are not accessible. And should a kid talk to his or her parents about homosexuality? Not necessarily–if the parents aren’t willing or able to discuss such things, why shouldn’t the schools? Frankly, I don’t know many parents who are willing to talk about sex at all, even when the parents are more tolerant. My dad would never have talked with me about it. Look what happened to Zach when he approached his parents.
The only fear of discussing sexual issues in school is a societal fear of sex in general.
Talking about homosexuality and sexual orientation is much different than talking about sexual positions. Is it not the expectation of the public to have the schools teach a full and proper education? Stating that homosexuality is same-sex attraction or behavior is definition. It is not pushing anything. In a health, psychology, or sociology class, it is appropriate and necessary to treat topics honestly and openly.
Last time I remember, health, psychology, or sociology class weren’t classes in High School – they’re subjects taught at university.
Also, in a health class, when AIDS is addressed, you must address risky sex issues such as anal sex.
True, but at the same time, one does not need to get in depth if unnecessary.
You are wrong though about accessing information themselves. That is cruel and awkward. If someone has a question, it should be addressed. If the student gets online, he or she may find problematic and false info. If the student goes to a couselor, he or she may find disdain or no info (for your info, state schools can lose funding if a counselor talks to a student about homosexuality. When I tried as a student to ask the counselor about it, I was told we weren’t allowed to ask such questions). If the student calls a hotline, he or she may be turned away because of age (I was). Libraries may not have adequate books for info. For a gay student, finding out info about homosexuality can be difficult and frightening.
And do you really think they’ll ask in a room full of school mates? please, when given the opportunity to ask a question at school, not one person was willing to put up their hand or put a serious question in the question box.
Finally, it is unfair to suggest that the school should not deal with such issues. Maybe the problem is not the schools. Maybe the problem is that parents are not accessible. And should a kid talk to his or her parents about homosexuality? Not necessarily–if the parents aren’t willing or able to discuss such things, why shouldn’t the schools? Frankly, I don’t know many parents who are willing to talk about sex at all, even when the parents are more tolerant. My dad would never have talked with me about it. Look what happened to Zach when he approached his parents.
The only fear of discussing sexual issues in school is a societal fear of sex in general.
They should be able to talk about it, but lets face the fact; the US is a hyperconservative country – if every halfwitt wants to be represented, from the ex-gay the ex-ex-ex-ex-gay to the soemthing or other, you’ll end up with all manner of confusion occuring.
What the US needs to do is get over its sex-o-phobia, then maybe then it can move into the big boys club, where they can talk about sex without giggling like school girl.
1. Health and psychology courses were taught in my secondary schools: Health was an annual requirement in junior high, and several psych electives were available in high school.
2. The majority of parents in many school districts nationally, including Montgomery County schools, very much want their teen-agers to be offered comprehensive sex education — despite the efforts of the religious right to promote sex-o-phobia, ignorance, and myths that lead to dangerous sexual behavior.
3. GLSEN’s “fistgate” mini-scandal in Massachusetts demonstrated that teen-agers will, in fact, ask explicit but important health questions when offered a safe environment to do so.
IMHO, the United States will not overcome any “sex-o-phobia” so long as schools and parents surrender their curricula to the fears and prejudices of the religious right.
Yes, health, psychology, and sociology are taught around the nation in middle and high schools and have been for decades. And they should be…they are legit, scholarly subjects.
Yes, teenagers will ask teachers they respect questions in a safe environment. They may even talk to the teacher afterward for questions they cannot get addressed later.
To get over that sexphobic society, the schools would have to be involved. I don’t really care if the society is sexphobic–I care that the schools are giving full, honest info. The schools don’t need to accomodate every view, but the teachers need to be willing and open to answering questions fairly and honestly if they are teaching those subjects. In science and health classes, science and health conscensous should be the prevailing wisdom of the discipline. The prevailing wisdom in health, psychology, and sociology is that the exgay position is not the best. Maybe that would change in the future, but for now that is the best there is.
I remember my first “sex education” in 6th grade. It was a one day thing when boys and girls were segregated and we saw some basic films about intercourse and they spoke to us afterward. This was in 1974. The next year we had a full fledged health class and discussed much more. In fact, what happened is particularly germane to this discussion.
At some point in that class they had some interns from the High School come in and take us to the pool to demonstrate how to survive in the water by taking off your pants and filling them with air to make a life preserver of sorts. I was 13 and quite attracted to this guy (I’m sure many of my classmates were equally attracted to the girl assisting him). I remember vividly thinking I would faint as he was coming out of the water with no pants! That was just after I had realized that I was gay and I was in great turmoil (1975 and Junior High). I can only imagine how much it may have improved my self worth and eased the turmoil of the next few years if they had just broached this subject in a rational, matter of fact way.
Over the years I have discovered that an astonishing number of the people I went to school with were also gay. Adding this to the curricula could very well save lives and certainly ease a lot of anxiety and allow gay students to perhaps feel OK and learn everything else they are supposed to. Wouldn’t that be something.
“Health” has been a subject in high schools for decades. I had the course when I was as senior (12th grade) in 1966-67. Indeed, I was given the task of giving the report to the class on STDs during that course.
I don’t recall any mention of homosexuality then, but it didn’t stop me from becoming one 😉
What would Sprigg or Cohen know?Anyway…By focussing on whether “health” or “STD” classes are appropriate at school, I think we’re missing what Sprigg and others are really trying to do:they want to redefine any conversation involving “homosexuality” as a discussion about sexual behaviour.Because even a discussion about the meaning of Whitman’s verse is now a “sexual” one, as example, a tiny minority are using “opt-in” (not, note, opt-out) permission slips to harass school districts into a complete ban on any mention. Or, as the father attempted in Massachusetts, even a ban on children with gay parents talking about their home life.For example, one cannot fully teach about one of Rome’s greatest — the gay bricklayer — without the obvious being mentioned. So, Hadrian must be ignored or his life must be falsely presented.Sprigg and others want this ignorance to be the norm. Without that, their anti-gay views and “statistics” would be seen as harmful and cruel.Cohen only wants to sell more books. He’s not even being honest about his “gay lifestyle” in the quoted statement.
P.S. Cohen will do what he’s told.As Falzarano found out, when PFOX people start working at odds with what FRC has decided is the way that PFOX shall be used; those people are banished.
It appears that Cohen is another employee, or at least a “hanger on”.
It is perhaps helpful, or at least meaningful, to not that the rise of Christianity was accompanied by the burning of libraries. By the destruction of high culture and literature. By the martyring of philosophers. What I see here is the continued anti-mind, anti-thought campaign that has characterized Christianity since at least the time of Diocletion. How does one teach history without mentioning and explaining Hadrian and Antinous?
DaleaI’m sure I would not characterise it that way – at least not so narrowly. Yes, we lost the library at Alexandria — a tragic loss — but I don’t it’s “Christianity” per se etc. More like, it was a result of extremists who happened to be Christian extremists.Diocletian is also not a good example of a bleeding heart liberal. Despite his enlightened views on many things, his own actions against Christians could also be deemed anti-mind and anti-thought. Of course, he also believed he was dealing with a dangerous cult — and perhaps the jury’s still out on that one… :-)[people, that was /sarc or whatever else we are using to denote a lame attempt at humour these days. So don’t bother…]