There are quite rightly statutes to hinder radical extremism of all kinds. Take creationism for instance. However, providing an appropriate awareness of something doesn't fall into that category. Challenging an order against that much would seem reasonable.
The issue in your argument is each person's definition of "appropriate". What you consider appropriate, I may (and probably do) not.
So what you and the radical gay advocates are trying to claim is that soliciting, imposing and advocating homosexual activity in the classroom is covered under freedom of speech? In other words, if a gay teacher wants to ask Johnny to come over after school for some head, he should be free to do so under the 1st ammendment? Good luck with that going mainstream.
You can't make my arguments up for me however much you'd like to. If you'd just calm down a second you might understand what I said which is there are quite rightly statutes against radical extremism. As far as I'm aware, any statute that worked against advocating reasonable and appropriate awareness of something, would not be right. That's all I said.
You wrote, "However, providing an appropriate awareness of something doesn't fall into that category. Challenging an order against that much would seem reasonable". Your response was to my post about radical gay advocates challenging the ruling against solicting and promoting homosexual activity in the classroom. You can see how one might take it that you were defending their position. I have no problem with some education towards tolerance. Very closely monitored education. More than that is off limits in the classroom.