Teaching Tolerance: Non-traditional Sex Acts and Sexual Education

There are an estimated 2.9 million homosexual adolescents in America(Williams, 138). Of those, nearly a third will attempt suicide before they graduate from high school, and about the same amount will drop out of high school altogether due to harassment and abuse (Williams, 140). In the "Homosexuality" volume of the Opposing Viewpoints Series, Shelly Reese cites the case of Jamie Nabozny (a student who, to the knowledge of the authority figures around him, was verbally and physically abused and even mock raped) as an example of just how far ignorance about homosexuality can be taken.

"A Wisconsin jury awarded almost $ 1 million to Jamie Nabozny and agreed that
a middle-school principal and two high-school administrators at Nabozny's former schools
in Ashland, Wisconsin, had violated his civil rights by failing to intervene and stop the abuse
after he went to them for help." (Williams, 139)

Derek Henkle notes his own experiences with facing "constant and brutal harassment" at his school. He's encouraged and put at ease to know that he's not alone in his feelings about being the subject of prejudice and acts of hatred. He states, specifically about Jamie's case,

"The distinctive thing about Jamie's story is that he was the first young person to do something
about the harassment! After dropping out twice, Jamie sued his school district in federal court
with the help of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. After setbacks and appeals and,
finally, a trial, he won his case, settling for nearly $1 million--for the first time establishing a
significant price tag for school districts and school officials who turn a blind eye as students
are abused for their sexual orientation or gender identity." (Henkle, 2002)

It is the focus of this piece to show that if homosexuality were a regular part of the curriculum in schools, starting in middle school (at the latest), future generations would cease to have such issues. The early start would make the idea of tolerance an acquisition instead of a lesson; if begun in middle school, talking about it would at least coincide with a time in children's lives when sexuality is becoming a very real social issue; and what is taught and understood about homosexuality will carry over into the children's adult lives and allow them to function efficiently alongside people that are from a sub-culture different from their own.

The sooner children are exposed to homosexuals, the more what they are taught is a more fluid, natural acquisition as opposed to being a lesson that one has to memorize. For instance, in learning a second language, it's much easier to acquire it at a young age by frequently using both languages in everyday experiences (i.e. Spanish at home-English at school or French at Grandpa's-Japanese at Grandma's). A child in this scenario grows up being able to use both languages fluently and naturally. They don't have to take grammar lessons or perform repetitive vocal drills-the language just makes sense to them. Languages that are taught in schools after a certain age (usually around six; Yule, 1996) are never languages that are spoken with much skill. Most of the time these languages (such as the mandatory language requirements of French, Spanish, or German) are rarely spoken in the classroom and none of the tests to measure ability in speaking the language involve any actualspeech at all, only what the students are able to accomplish on paper. This acquisition principle carries over into areas such as gender roles and social stigmas. Children learn a great deal of how to behave during social interaction from watching others do so-especially their parents. Holding tighter onto a child's hand or even crossing the street whenever you encounter an African-American on the sidewalk, or never saying the word menstruation in the home even after the child has reached puberty (and using substitute words such as "the woman thing", "the monthly thing", "sick") can easily give the child the impression that these people or things are dangerous, bad, dirty, and negative. Another key feature of beginning this education process early is the fact that the idea of homosexuals and homosexuality is gradually introduced to the child as opposed to them finding out about homosexuals from and while around peers. The conformity pressures may then force the child to dichotomize all facets of the issue. They may feel the need to choose whether they are "for" or "against" homosexuality and incidentally close themselves off from any further discussion about facts they may be lacking on the subject. Further, if they have only a guarded notion of homosexuality and are suddenly placed alongside the issue in the work place or on the campus, as has happened with many teens, they may not know exactly how to deal with it. The culture shock could result in a lashing out with a negative reaction (such as Jamie's incidents of mock rape), if they had only heard negative things about homosexuality, and could damage what otherwise could've been a perfectly healthy professional, academic, or social relationship with a wonderful human being.

Middle school is a time when sexuality and sexual choices become real social issues due to the onset of puberty and the introduction of sexual education into the curriculum. This is a point in the child's life when everything around them is being sorted and labeled, namely themselves and their peers. There's no legitimate reason to focus on heterosexuality alone when talking about safe sexual practices. In fact, doing so can be seen as quite harmful. Gomez et al. make note of that in answer to a question about how even high-school may be "too early" to have this discussion.

"A majority of [heterosexual and homosexual] boys and girls are sexually active
before they are18 years old,...and teenage boys are much more sexually active
at this time than at any other period in their lives... Withholding information about
sex is a form of sexual neglect, for which we pay great social costs such as unwanted
teenage pregnancies, teenage VD, violence against gays, and so forth." (Gomez et al., 85)

Gomez et al. also speak about a method of integration and ways of speaking that help the topic of homosexuality not stick out so much once being spoken of in the classroom.

"...it is extremely effective to integrate the topic of homosexuality throughout the
family life / health education curriculum. Homosexuality may be introduced and
considered when talking about sex roles, parenting, venereal diseases, prejudice,
relationships, and legal issues. This may happen quite naturally, just by changing
a word or two. For example, when talking about the relationships, refer to a couple
as partners or lovers rather than as husband and wife or girlfriend and boyfriend.
Thus, the discussion is no longer limited to heterosexual behavior. When talking
about venereal diseases, explain that gay people also get these diseases.
When discussing, prejudices, stereotypes, or social relationships, remember to
include attitudes towards homosexuality." (Gomez, 20)

If a child is beginning to feel that they aren't attracted to members of the opposite sex, hearing only about the methods and safe sex of male-female copulation can lead to (sub)conscious feelings of ostracism, loneliness, and sadness as they realize that, besides not being able to relate to their same-sex peers sexually, they aren't even mentioned when it comes to sex, which is already supposed to be a risqué issue to discuss in school. But if homosexuals are included, there are three main, major benefits to be reaped. First, the bitter, depressing emotions a homosexual would experience at not being noted are eradicated. They don't get the impression that having feelings for persons of the same sex is completely unheard of or totally off the wall. Secondly, they understand that they too have a responsibility to have safe sex, no matter who they practice it with. This way, even though they are recognized as a sub-culture with its own practices, they are still classified as part of the broader, general population in the aspect of preventing the spread of disease. Thirdly, they are actually being educated on how to have safe-sex "their way". This can help cut down on sexual violence and the spreading of diseases since, because of the stigma attached to their sexual orientation, the child may try to find someone older than them that they don't know or with as little experience as them to experiment with. The point is that this person that the child has chosen could either not care about the younger person's safety, or not know any better how to go about having sex safely.

Beyond these gains to the homosexual adolescent, there are also up-sides for the heterosexuals of the class. First, they don't disregard the presence of homosexuals in their lives and become more conscious of the things that they do and say, that way they are less likely to offend a homosexual, or make them feel bad about their sexual preference which can help save a lot of relationships, as I spoke of earlier. Secondly, they are much less likely to be perpetrators of hate crimes and harassment or abuse in their school which of course can lead to reprimands, suspension, and expulsion. Thirdly, the seed of tolerance is subliminally implanted in them so that they can exercise the values of tolerance around their family and other peer groups, such as Scout troops and sports teams, therefore spreading the mindset and reinforcing their ability to get through life respecting people that are different from them in various ways.

The exposure of the homosexual lifestyle to these children can also serve its purpose as a reverberating moral value during their working and higher educational career. At this point in life the child will also side-step getting into any legal and social incidents involving hate crime and harassment or abuse stemming from the perceived "threat" of another's sexuality. Beyond this they will also teach their own children to be tolerant of others, as they have been. Their initial tolerance of a lifestyle like homosexuality will help lead them to be accepting of other human social differences such as race, nationality, socioeconomic status, age, gender, religion, and physical ability.

This is an issue that has, of course, brought many critics forward. One criticism produced by Ed Vitagliano is "If a parent views homosexuality as wrong, what is the child to do with a contradictory message coming from another respected authority figure-the child's teacher?" (Williams, 146) In answer to that, one must understand that the purpose of teaching about homosexuals and homosexual tolerance is not to necessarily persuade the child that homosexuality is "right", "wrong", "good", or "bad". The purposes of talking about homosexuality in schools are supposed to be as follows: First, to fully explain the definition of "homosexuality" objectively. This means making sure that the children understand that homosexuality is not a disease or a choice, and that they understand that just because a person is attracted to people of their same sex, doesn't mean that they aren't human or that they deserve any lesser treatment than any other human being. Secondly, to prepare the children for an aspect of society that they will no doubt encounter even before they reach college and the working world. With these drives in mind, the parent that believes homosexuality is "wrong" or "a sin" is still able to confront the child about what beliefs they have about homosexuals. The point Vitagliano is really trying to make is that the teaching about homosexuality in schools will threaten the system of intellectual hierarchy in the home. In other words, parents want to MAKE their children believe what they already believe and having the "other side" of an issue presented to a child may weaken the parents' argument. I suppose that if a parent wants to dictate their children in such a manner, this could indeed be construed as a problem. On that note, I'd have to counter with the example that evolution is being taught in many schools even though many Christian (and other religiously affiliated) parents don't believe in it. The only way to "remedy" this "problem" is to allow the child to make their own decision about how to treat other human beings. The parents should present what they think to the child and then leave the child to their own ponderings on the subject.

Anita Bryant, an anti-gay activist, states in Smith and Windes "Progay/Antigay" that, "public approval of admitted homosexual teachers could encourage more homosexuality by inducing pupils into looking upon it as an acceptable lifestyle." This notion is echoed in other areas of Vitagliano's essay. By making this statement, Bryant has shown her own ignorance and bigotry due to the fact that she, wrongfully might I add, believes that homosexuality is a choice. She seems to think that all kids want is the go-ahead, and they'll all suddenly, magically become attracted to people of the same sex. These are exactly the kinds of ideas that teaching more about homosexuality at early ages will eliminate.

In order to make an operation such as teaching about homosexuality in school work, people must take hold of three major truths about homosexuality.

First, homosexuality is not a choice. What reason would anyone have to label themselves as homosexual, without it being true, on purpose? Why would anyone condemn themselves to possible estrangement from (or altogether disownment by) their families and friends, abuse and harassment form those around them that don't agree with their lifestyles, and the possibility of being maimed or murdered because of the type of people that they are attracted to? This situation is similar to the plight of mulatto blacks in the days just before blacks were at least able to live in peace in groups with themselves. The vast majority of mulattoes that could, decided to 'pass' as whites in order to lead easier, happier, safer lives themselves and ensure a sturdy future for their children.

Secondly, homosexuality is natural. This means that no matter what is done to try to "get rid" of homosexuals, including exile, humiliation, and even execution homosexuals will always exist. Once people realize this, the hope is that they will move on from trying to make homosexuals "change" to trying to accept an inevitable part of human social life. Even other male animals, dogs for instance, have been seen mounting one another. This doesn't mean that they don't reproduce with females of their species.

Thirdly, homosexuality is a preference. A preference is not the opposite of a choice. Because they have (fe)male sexual organs, homosexuals do not HAVE to have intercourse with people of the same sex. The point is that they prefer it. They want to meet, fall in love with, and have sex with someone whose genitals are similar to their own. Just as heterosexuals do not HAVE to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but wish to meet, fall in love with, and have sex with someone whose genitals counter their own.

This last need-to-know fact about homosexuality brings forth one of the largest, consciously or otherwise, presented issues against homosexuality, which is the topic of procreation. The inability of homosexual couples to procreate is probably why a lot of people believe homosexuality is unnatural-because the entire purpose of living is (according to some) to have sex with someone and produce more humans. My first answer to that is, if that's all humans are here to do, should castrated, impotent, and HIV positive men (that don't want to spread the disease) just to name a few, simply commit suicide because they can't impregnate a female and help produce offspring? My second challenge to those that opt to make this argument is to note the mass of women and men who are barren and have children through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. If anything, homosexuals that take part in these services are picking up Nature's slack, so to speak. Therefore they provide a service (producing babies for those that can't) for the entire world. This makes them a bottomless pit of new humans. They can make as many children as they like without having to ever stop due to stress, fatigue, or financial issues since someone else without the means to produce the children is actually taking them home. On the flip side, homosexual couples who attempt adoption would be picking up society's slack by taking in children who don't have homes to live in.

Ultimately, the purpose of this regime change would be the presentation of the facts to the children. No one is going to brainwash kids or force them to act a way that they don't want to. No one is going to try to force the children to think that behaving (sexually) like a homosexual is what they should strive to accomplish in life. The children would be able to make their own decision about the subject (as they will have to do as they grow older and come across other 'controversial' issues anyway) and give homosexual adolescents, and adults, a fighting chance at their own pursuit of happiness.

Works cited

Gomez, Jose et al. Demystifying Homosexuality. New York: Irvington Publishers, 1984

Henkle, Derek. "Safety in Numbers." The Advocate. 12 November 2002.

Smith, Ralph R. and Russel R. Windes. Progay/Antigay. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2000

Williams, Mary E. Homosexuality. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999

Yule, George. The Study of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 162-171.