CORRESPONDENCErnLetter FromrnMassachusettsrnby Eugene NarrettrnThe Sex Quizrn”Is it possible heterosexuality is a phasernyou will grow out of? Are you heterosexualrnbecause you fear the same sex? If yournhave never slept with anyone of the samernsex, how do you know you wouldn’t preferrnit? Is it possible you merely need arngood gay experience?” Far from rhetoricalrnquestions and accompanying suggestionsrnthat Jesus was gay, Ruth a lesbian,rnand King David a bisexual, these queriesrnwere offered in a “sex quiz” given studentsrnlast spring by “health educators”rnat a high school in Framingham, Massachusetts.rnPrincipal Bob Flaherty saidrnthe questions were not advocacy, justrn”thoughtful and constructive” lessons inrntolerance and the golden rule, but that’srnbacktracking and spin. For one thing,rnteachers don’t give quizzes to homosexualrnstudents urging heterosexuality onrnthem. Quite the contrary, youngsters todayrnare urged toward sexual adventurism,rnwith condoms as their coat of arms.rnSecondly, and despite Flaherty’s weakrndenial, tfie quiz clearly invites teens torntry homosexual acts. This promotionalrnquality alarmed some parents.rnThe “Fiving Relationships” part of thernsensitivity curriculum presented oral andrnanal sex as “methods of birth control thatrnpreserve the concept of virginity,” forrnstudents who are open-minded. In arnworkbook titled Facing Reality, a quizrnasked students if they found homosexualrnacts “disgusting.” Those who checkedrnthey did, lost points, and the lower theirrnscore, the more “homophobic” they wererntold they are. Yet, like Flaherty, thernschool’s Director of Health Education,rnJim Carey, insisted “everything was donernvery positively, with thought and sensitivity.”rnSimilar professions of compassion forrnchildren have cleared the way for a photornexhibit which opened in January atrnschools in Amherst, Massachusetts, andrnis now touring the nation. Sponsored byrnGLSTN (the Gay, Lesbian and StraightrnTeachers Network) and titled “LovernMakes a Family: Living in Gay and LesbianrnFamilies,” the exhibit features photographsrnof homosexual households andrnis part of current efforts by the Clintonrnadministration, mass media, and advertisingrnindustries to reshape and adulteraternthe meaning of marriage and family.rnCommenting on the exhibit, a supportivernteacher stated, “We have passedrnthe point of typical families, so why makerna big deal of it?” A school committeernmember agreed, and argued againstrnletting parents excuse children fromrndiscussing the exhibit. “That would be arndirect insult to lesbians and gays,” shernsaid. For some, education today meansrnimposing vice in the name of mercy andrngood manners.rnThus, in every school it visits, “Lovernmakes a family” is an occasion forrnmandatory, government-subsidized discussionsrnaffirming feminist and gay reconstructionsrnof gender and family. Butrnsome resist the agenda. “Could there bernan exhibit of Catholic children takingrnCommunion?” one Pioneer Valley parentrnwondered. Another picked up thisrnpoint, asking, “Could we have photos ofrnparents and kids hunting deer?” Othersrnmoved beyond these observations onrnGLSTN’s partisan redefinition of “diversity”rnto worry that “the schools are takingrnon so many social issues, teachers don’trnhave time to treat traditional curricula,”rna point reflected in many tests showingrnthe ignorance of American students inrnthe core disciplines.rnDespite its homey-sounding title,rn”Love makes a family” is a coy but nowrnfamiliar polemic subverting the fact thatrnhusband, wife, and children make thernfamily in healthy cultures. As one parentrnbluntly stated, “The exhibit containsrnglowing descriptions of tangled sexualrnrelationships, artificial insemination, ofrnleaving spouses for homosexual partners,rn[things] that could frighten and embarrassrna child.” More than that, the exhibitrncould undermine any sense of foundationalrnkinship, for if “love makes arnfamily,” marriage should be allowed notrnonly for gays and lesbians, but for anyrntwo, three, five, or more people seeking arncarnal fellowship. Such unions may berntransient not only for sensual but for socialrnreasons like no-fault divorce and therndisposable ethos it reflects, but whyrnshould incestuous or homosexual bondsrnbe any more durable than the ligature ofrnhusband and wife which today is fragilernas impulse? And if, like marriage and impulse,rngender is only a phase one passesrnin and out of like an animal in heat, andrnthe nocturnal tropisms of “orientation”rnits only standard, why not try a new-stylernmarriage? How else will you know, as thernquiz asks, whether you might like it?rnFramingham’s sex education classesrnindicate the dangerous paths schoolteachersrnare opening for children in thernname of “affirming diverse lifestyles”rnand “health education.” When adultsrntalk dirty to children and encouragernthem to engage in sex, they would ordinarilyrnbe accused of corrupting the innocent.rnBut today such discourse is legitimizedrnon grounds of compassion: ifrnchildren become intimately familiar withrnalternative sexual practices, then lesbiansrnand gays will never have their feelingsrnhurt. In the name of compassion, today’srnsensitivity training creates suchrnwounds by prompting adolescents torndoubt and even despise their naturalrnfeelings, while offering them attentionrnand solicitude if they confess the newrnhomosexual faith. For example, duringrn”Gay & Lesbian Awareness Month,” studentsrnat Brookline High School are invitedrnto “Tell Someone” about their homosexualrnfantasies or experiences, andrnto wear pink cardboard triangles imprintedrnwith the word “ALLY.” Thesernstratagems exploit the adolescent hungerrnfor attention, for having their confusionsrngiven a heroic metaphysical dimension.rnAlong with inviting a new sexual path,rnteachers also encourage students tornmock and despise normalcy. Thus, thernsex quiz at Framingham High Schoolrnsuggested to students that marriage betweenrnman and woman is unsatisfyingrnand doomed: “Why are there sornfew good heterosexual marriages?” itrnqueried, arguing there was no intrinsicrnreason for choosing it rather than homosexualrncongress, implying they were mattersrnof amoral selection like choosing paperrnor plastic at the checkout counter, asrnone clergyman said.rnHaving posed its questions on the decayrnof heterosexual marriage, FraminghamrnHigh School provided no educatorsrnto explain how the counterculture’s con-rnOCTOBER 1996/33rnrnrn