Well that's nice except my point is not based on religion so your whole spiel is irrelevant. The norm for sexuality and procreation isn't going to change anytime soon. Which is exactly what needs to be done be it marriage, civil unions or whatever new term the leftists invent to force their opinions on everybody else.
I hold the Libertarian view on this - Gays should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it does not affect me or my family. It's when schooling has to change and things like that where I don't want my child getting an education on topics like homosexuality that I get all mad about it. You're gay? Good for you. Want to get married? Go for it. Want to fight in the military? Here's your rifle. Do whatever you want to do and do it well.
Pretty much my view. The radical gay activists went a bridge too far when entering the educational curriculum . When they take the stance that little Johnny, who might be a bit confused about sex ought to go suck some dick and find out if he likes it, that's problematic, and that is exactly what they want taught. The radical activists aren't satisfied with social acceptance of homsexuality, they want it pushed as a lifestyle choice.
Wow, that's extreme. As I'm sure most normal people would agree, young children should not be pushed into having sex of any kind or orientation. Would you have a source to back up your claim?
http://www.wnd.com/2007/02/40339/ http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ht-homosexuality-celebrate-gay-community.html How many more would you like? There are hundreds!
I didn't say it was. I didn't say it would. The norm for using the term marriage can change though, which was my point and must by the same token make your spiel irrelevant. Well then it is merely down to the legal definition of the word marriage. The problem perhaps is with some rightist and religious preferences wanting to dictate what peoples' opinions should be.
But that's the thing. If there is going to be any sex education at all, at whatever age it is deemed appropriate, then key topics should be covered, which would include homosexuality. Not that it should be encouraged. Merely explained. In that way, people who have that orientation won't feel left out of humanity at a young and impressionable age, and the majority who are straight will be educated enough not to ridicule and tease kids who they feel are "different." Win-win. When I was a young kid, there was no such education. What we learned from grade 7 onward did not cover homosexuality. As kids, we made fun of gays, although none of us knew of any personally (at least not knowingly -- you can imagine why), and we called them by another name. Looking back, it must have been really tough for those kids who marched to a different drummer. And even though I was always an empathic kid, some things just didn't sink in until later. Perhaps if we had gotten a head start to better understanding at an appropriate time, we might not have been so judgmental and more accepting of those among us who are "different."
Assuming the accounting of events is accurate, then some of the stuff is aggressive, if only because sex education has a time and place. However, in my quick skim of the material, I did not come across any evidence of "try it, you'll like it" segments.
I think they should teach homosexuality in school. Todays lesson. If you call in bomb threat, you're going to jail as a terrorist and going to get fucked in the ass. If you bully "Stephan" because he is gay, you'll be charged with a hate crime and looking at a possible 5 -10 year sentence of sucking dick in prison. Stay tuned....