LEGISLATIVE BATTLE OVER HOMOPHOBIA IN THE SCHOOLS
The following materials were provided to those fighting a resolution before the RI House
of Representatives calling on the Department of Education "develop and offer "a
continuing education module to teachers, administrators, and other school personnel on the
subject of "homophobia" in the schools and other homosexuality related matters.
In fact, the Dept. of Ed. had already implemented a homophobia module and was seeking
legislative approval so it could push to make the module mandatory.
I testified on using these points, referencing the material in the studies on this
disk. I also prepared and sent a letter to every representative. After passing in
committee (3 of the committee members are homosexual), the resolution was pulled without a
If you have legislation pending in your state, we will be happy to
supply you with relevant material.
HOMOPHOBIA MODULE WILL PUT BOYS AT RISK AND MAKE STATE LIABLE FOR
STATE LEGISLATORS ARE WARNED THAT THE DEPT. OF ED. HAS CREATED A MASSIVE LIABILITY FOR
THE STATE OF RI BY DISSEMINATING FALSE, MISLEADING, AND INACCURATE INFORMATION
The continuing education module on homophobia currently being used, and for which the
Dept. of Ed. now seeks legal cover through house resolution 98 H 8072, will result in the
infection and eventually death of boys who receive false and misleading information and
the State of RI will be liable.
Teachers will be taught that 10% of children are born homosexual and that nothing can
change that orientation. They will communicate this information to students and parents.
Boys who exhibit symptoms of Gender Identity Disorder or Juvenile Unmasculinity and are
teased by other children will be labeled by teachers and students as homosexual and
encouraged to join homosexual support groups in the schools. Parents will be told to
"accept" their son's homosexuality.
The truth is that Gender Identity Disorder and Juvenile Unmasculinity are treatable and
preventable conditions. With treatment the teasing will stop and there is an excellent
possible that the boy will not engage high risk behaviors in adolescence.
Without treatment 75% of the boys will become involved in high risk behavior. Those who
begin this behavior in high school are most at risk. According to a report by Dr. Linda
Valleroy of the CDC 9% of sexually active gay males will be HIV positive before they are
There is now substantial evidence that AIDS education has failed with the most at-risk
population. Without intervention 50% of the boys labeled as homosexual by teachers will
eventually die of diseases related to homosexuality.
How will their parents feel when they learn this could have been prevented? How will
the feel when they understand that being labeled by the school lead to their son's death?
How will RI pay the bill if they decide to sue?
The Dept. of Ed. is already providing false, inaccurate, and misleading information.
Boys are already being encouraged to come out by "gay" sensitive teachers.
I would be happy to sit down with any legislator interested in understanding this issue
and provide him with information from numerous medical journal articles and other sources
substantiating these risk.
Dale O'Leary - email - email@example.com
TALKING POINTS FOR A PRO-FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE
The resolution before us tells us why its supporters want this homophobia module, it
does not tell us what will be in the module or how that will be decided or who will be
allowed to have input. We must ask that question.
We all agree teasing is wrong and teachers should protect all students from teasing,
that is not what 8072 is about. It is about using the schools to win a political debate.
Homosexuality is one of the most divisive issues in our society. Currently there are
two points of view, which I will call Side A and Side B.
Side A believes passionately that 10% of the population is unalterably homosexual. They
hold that homosexual activity is the moral equivalent of heterosexual activity and should
be accepted. They believe that HIV/AIDS can be prevented by education and condom use and
that anyone who disagrees with Side A is guilty of homophobia which is the equivalent to
racism or anti-Semitism. Side A want you to pass 8072 and approve the Dept. of Ed.'s
program to teach teachers Side A.
Side B holds that homosexual attractions are preventable and treatable and that
parents, teachers and students have a right to know that change is possible. Side B feels
they have substantial and uncontroverted evidence that HIV/AIDS education has failed with
this population and that one out of two men who have sex with men will become HIV positive
or contract other fatal sexually transmitted diseases and that young men who begin to
engage in same-sex activity in adolescence are most at risk. Many RI citizens also believe
that sexual activity should be restricted to the husband/wife pair and feel that for the
schools to tell their children otherwise encroaches on their parental rights and religious
freedom. They resent the implication that they are un-American or bigoted and insist they
too care deeply about the rights and dignity of all persons.
It is clear that the supporters of the 8072 hope to use the "homophobia"
module to impose Side A on teachers and students. There is no evidence that both sides of
this debate will be fairly presented to teachers and through them to students. Indeed it
is impossible to see how any person believing one side could fairly present the other and
we have seen no evidence that the Dept. of Ed. will seek input from those who hold to Side
B. Indeed the purpose of the module is to ridicule and demean those who hold to Side B.
This is an effort to use us as legislators and to use the public schools to win a hotly
contested political debate.
I am not asking you as legislators to decide which side is right. Some of you may only
have heard one side of the issue. I don't want to debate that now. I am not an expert on
homosexuality - if you have questions about the research which side B feels supports it
point of view, I would be happy to give you the names of people who are able to explain
I am asking you to recognize that we as a legislative body do not have the expertise to
decide which side is right and if we have not definitively proven that side A is right
then we should not be asking the Dept. of Ed. to impose the ideology of side A on the
teachers and through them on the students of Rhode Island.
Those RI teachers, students or parents of students who believe that side B is correct
have a right to their convictions. We in the legislature should not be labeling them as
bigoted or anti-American. We should not allow state money to be used to forward a campaign
There are other issues. Those who support Side B have pointed out that passing 8072
could put the State of RI at risk financially.
If, as Side B holds, homosexuality is preventable and treatable, and the symptoms are
apparent in childhood and if boys who show these symptoms are told by teachers they are
unalterably homosexual and if these boys seeing no other option engage in homosexual
behavior, a predictable percentage will become HIV positive or contract Human Papilloma
Virus caused cancer or hepatitis or other sexually transmitted diseases.
This is not an "if" -- boys will become HIV-positive and given the litigious
nature of our society -- they will sue, their parents will sue -- and they will have a
case if they were given false information by teachers - information the teachers received
from the Dept. of Ed. - information which we as legislators approved.
It is simply wrong to tell people that they have a condition that cannot be treated
when in fact treatment is available. It is particularly wrong if that condition puts the
person at risk for a number of life threatening diseases.
The Dept. of Ed. should not supplying inaccurate or incomplete information to teachers
and students. The RI education system should not be used by one side in a political
battle. Children's lives are at stake and we as legislatures must not allow ourselves to
be used in this way.
Isn't it better to identify the pre-homosexual boy and give him lots of support and
AIDS education? Won't that protect him from AIDS and the state from liability? No.
There is now substantial and uncontroverted evidence that once a person begins to
engage in homosexual behavior -- even though they know the risks and know how to use
condoms -- they do not use condoms every single time. Because HIV is epidemic in the
homosexual community, the risk from even a few failures to use condoms or condom failures
are so high that experts predict that the lifetime risk of HIV infection for a man who has
sex with men is 50%. This is well documented by Gabriel Rotello in his recent book Sexual
Ecology. Gabriel Rotello is a homosexual activist.
New research reveals that not only are young men at high risk for HIV infection, many
are being infected with drug resistant strains of the virus. The hopes of controlling the
disease are being dashed by the behavior of HIV-positive men.