Watch the videos. What the Gay Agenda is doing, to 1st-3rd graders.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Slevin57 I don't really like it when people go out of there way to have an Asian American Day, or an African American History month. It seems like to me these events foster more isolation of the group, not a universal understanding. If homosexuality wants to be considered "part of society", they need to treat it like it's already part of society. That video was not done very well. It's obvious they tried WAY to hard to make it appear that those kids already had an appreciation for Gay and Lesbian people. I don't know how it is now, but I didn't even know what "Gay" really meant until 7th grade. Kind of ironic since it was hurled as an insult to me since 5th grade. But it turns out, they were actually right! I'm not ashamed at all about being Gay, (Actually bisexual--but for all intents and purposes I'm both ). I don't see a need to wear a shirt that let's everyone know, nor do I feel the need to condemn people who think it's wrong. I operate on the "He who starts an argument, always looses" principal. I'm fully prepared to defend homosexuality ethically, religiously, economically, and every other kind of -lly, if necessary. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.

In the case of Black History Month, it was created to increase awareness about the swiftly disappearing history of their culture. Equality is not part of that equation... all they aim to do is to get excited about their ancestry. It's not some twisted radical black victimization awareness meeting; what they bring up is a worthy concern. I do not, however, support the constant racist wedge-driving of much of the other items on the "black agenda," though.

Now, on to the matter at hand. In the first place, pretending that there is no difference, or acting like you're equal anyway does not always decrease people noticing and acting on said differences. In the second place, acknowledging differences does does not always cause people to use them against you. It can be damaging to the gay community for gays to reinforce the "all gays are hilarious, have a lisp, and moonlight as drag queens"; it can also be damaging to act like there is no difference between a person who has one mom and one dad and a person who has two mom or two dads in instances when there is prejudicial pressure to have one mom and one dad. Ignoring it can be just as harmful as advertising it. It is simply faulty reasoning to conclude that always pretending there is no difference will somehow make people disregard the difference.

This particular exercise was clearly aimed to combat the prejudices children develop for various reasons. Exercises like this are beneficial to them, because no matter what you believe, it is always imperative that you recognize people are as they are for a reason, and even if you disagree with their choices, their lifestyle, or their skin color, it is important that you respect them as people. The gay community are not "starting" this argument -- it's been here since before kids started calling each other things like "gay" and "faggot." I don't particularly give a damn if its not in the parent's belief code to treat gay people nicely, since even the jackasses in this nation are part of society. Exercises like this at worst make kids ask questions. We're not brainwashing people, we're not conditioning them to believe that being gay is good... all we're doing is making kids aware that it hurts to be made fun of, and that gay people are not as different as they may believe.

Quote by: tinybear Let the kids decide for themselves when they get older. Feeding them propaganda at such a young age should not be supported. That's what I think.

Propaganda must deliberately target a party and hurt them for the benefit of another group (or groups). It's hatemongering. It may be biased, but it's not propaganda.

[againstthewind]

Open mindedness between vegetables and being open minded enough to try them and believing that homosexuality is wrong is two different things! The fact that they are wearing pink triangles is highly disturbing. Someone hiding their homosexuality doesn't impede their work. This video is a travesty of the school system. While there is diversity, they should leave that to the home, the school has NO authority to teach perversion as an acceptable means of expression of love. The greatest love was demonstrated in Christ (Ro 5:8)

[Rinoa]

I don't like the age at which this was being taught. K-5 is not the time to worry about sexuality issues, and at that point it is the parents right to decide what morals their children have whether, or not you agree with them. That can wait til sixth or seventh grade when the child is a little better able to judge the material for themselves. Also, many parents simply don't choose to expose their children to the idea that people can be gay until a later age. My child won't be exposed to alot of the sexual maturity issues between straight people until they're older, I don't see why I shouldn't wait on the sexual maturity issues for gays as well. Though I will of course answer their questions for both identities in an age appropriate manner should they come to me with them.

But I wouldn't still wouldn't go so far as to call it a 'gay agenda'...It's just a message of tolerance being put in place to shelter children who do have gay parents. Though that should be handled by watching the playgrounds better and explanations that the parents decide to give.

When I lived in California because of the amount of money some of the parents were making, and the jobs that they had parents had such flexible schedules and were able to get time off when they felt like it there was a waiting list for the PTA with at least twenty people on it all the time. You didn't swear on the playground, or do things that were inappropriate because a mom that knew your mom and controlled your contact with friends was always right around the corner. I went from liberal california to conservative Utah in second grade and was shocked to find out that kids swore on the playground. My point is parental involvement is what is needed. With that involvement you wouldn't have to teach things against the parents morals, even a conservative dad who is against gay rights doesn't want his girls using derogatory slang terms.

Against the wind: It wasn't teaching perversions, just that we shouldn't judge people by those that they choose. I do, however, agree that students don't need to know about the teachers choices as it has no standing on their abilities as a teacher. Me being straight wouldn't make me a better or worse teacher anymore than being gay, black or white.

[againstthewind]

Quote by: Rinoa But I wouldn't still wouldn't go so far as to call it a 'gay agenda'...It's just a message of tolerance being put in place to shelter children who do have gay parents. Though that should be handled by watching the playgrounds better and explanations that the parents decide to give. THERE IS A GAY AGENDA. ULTIMATELY IT BLURS THE DISTINCTION OF MARRIAGE BY SAYING THAT ALL MARRIAGE AND LIFESTYLES ARE EQUALLY VALID, RELIGIONS, ETC. WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY (Like saying that atheism and Christianity is valid is stupid) When I lived in California because of the amount of money some of the parents were making, and the jobs that they had parents had such flexible schedules and were able to get time off when they felt like it there was a waiting list for the PTA with at least twenty people on it all the time. You didn't swear on the playground, or do things that were inappropriate because a mom that knew your mom and controlled your contact with friends was always right around the corner. I went from liberal california to conservative Utah in second grade and was shocked to find out that kids swore on the playground. My point is parental involvement is what is needed. With that involvement you wouldn't have to teach things against the parents morals, even a conservative dad who is against gay rights doesn't want his girls using derogatory slang terms. NOTE: Of course not, parents are called to be parents (that's in the Bible too) and that they should love their children Against the wind: It wasn't teaching perversions, just that we shouldn't judge people by those that they choose. I do, however, agree that students don't need to know about the teachers choices as it has no standing on their abilities as a teacher. Me being straight wouldn't make me a better or worse teacher anymore than being gay, black or white.

Right, you mean it was teaching to excuse perversion and don't act like you don't judge at all. You judged what you wanted to wear and what you wanted your hair to look like, what you were going to do, etc. So of course, we do judge

[Rinoa]

Of course we judge, it is when we force those judgements onto other people, and use them against that person for no other reason than hurtingthe other person that it is a problem. It taught simply that we do not punish perversion, a stance, that you as a godfearing christian ought to uphold.

The Pharisees brought a woman before Jesus stating that she had committed adultery, and wanted to know what punishment she should receive. Jesus responded by saying 'let him without sin cast the first stone' This shows that by casting stones(judging) we ourselves are sinning. Would you teach your child to sin by using stone casting words like 'fag'? No. Would you want someone to help prevent your child from sinning in that manner? Yes.

Whether or not homosexuality is right in the eyes of god was not the issue here. By teaching tolerance the issue is only whether or not it is our job to judge them for their sins.

[gw120]

K-5 is not the time to worry about sexuality issues

I disagree. It may not be the time for kids to think about whether or not they're gay but I think it is the time to talk about what gayness is and that it's not wrong. Kids starting calling other kids gay/lesbian/fag/dyke as an insult at that age (maybe not kindergarten but I started hearing kids get called that as young as grade 3). So I think it's the right time to teach them about it instead of letting them hear it for the fist time as an insult, because if they hear it first as an insult then they will assume it's just something you don't want to be, so they'll be afraid to tell people things like "I got two moms/dads and they're lesbian/gay." I've got no study or anything to back this up but kids are generally homophobic once they learn what gay means from another kid and hear it as an insult.

[Rinoa]

You don't need a study when what you say is common sense. lol

I do agree that intolerance is an issue at that age, but to teach that being gay is ok can be a violation of the parents rights. That's why I recommended what I did. We need to teach that the insults are wrong, not just those towards gay people, but all of them. Parental involvement is the best way, because it prevents morals that they disagree with from being taught, but still allows them to prevent their children from insulting one another. Personally I want a law that requires parents to be in the classroom one day out of the month.

[gw120]

Ideally yes parental involvement would be best, but unfortunately there are alot of parents that support calling people fags and dykes.

[Rinoa]

They believe in saying it themselves, but very few parents encourage that sort of language in their children, and those that do could have a meeting with the principal. My point is teaching about it isn't necessary at young ages, and could upset some parents.

[Jack]

My point is teaching about it isn't necessary at young ages, and could upset some parents.

Some parents get upset that their children aren't taught in public school that men and dinosaurs coexisted and that god(s) created the world. They think that evolution is a fallacy, in spite of its overwhelming support in the scientific community.
Parents have plenty of time to fill their children's head with all sorts of misinformation and silliness. The schools aren't obligated to endorse those opinions during class. When we get to where schools may only teach Christian-approved topics, we'll be well on the way to a theocracy, no different than those in the Middle East.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: againstthewind Open mindedness between vegetables and being open minded enough to try them and believing that homosexuality is wrong is two different things! The fact that they are wearing pink triangles is highly disturbing. Someone hiding their homosexuality doesn't impede their work. This video is a travesty of the school system. While there is diversity, they should leave that to the home, the school has NO authority to teach perversion as an acceptable means of expression of love. The greatest love was demonstrated in Christ (Ro 5:8)

"Open minded enough to try them and believing that homosexuality is wrong"?

That's where I stopped reading - and it appears rightly so, because you seem to validate your post with the most ridiculous of sources (the bible).

We're not debating Christianity or anything in the bible. Using it to validate your prejudice is nonsensical.

Anyway - back to that statement.

Despite the atrocious grammar, you seem to have the impression that teaching homosexuality as a perversion is "open minded".

You clearly don't know the difference between being truly open minded, and accepting whatever you and your imaginary friend say as infallible.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Isherwood Some parents get upset that their children aren't taught in public school that men and dinosaurs coexisted and that god(s) created the world. They think that evolution is a fallacy, in spite of its overwhelming support in the scientific community. Parents have plenty of time to fill their children's head with all sorts of misinformation and silliness. The schools aren't obligated to endorse those opinions during class. When we get to where schools may only teach Christian-approved topics, we'll be well on the way to a theocracy, no different than those in the Middle East.

Evolution is not taught in school, nor is "counter-evolution." Nowhere in my elementary education was the word evolution even mentioned, as far as I can remember, and neither was created mentioned.
The closest we came to that was talking about the solar system (NO Big Bang/creation discussion), the age of the earth, and fossils.
I will admit, however, that around that point in time, my father talked to me about the age of the earth and fossils, and about he would trust the Bible more than a machine that would test rocks (carbon dating). That's what our home education was, but my father is an intelligent person despite what you may gather from this information. Everyone has their own beliefs I suppose.
In fact, by the time we were taught evolution in 9th grade biology, I'm fairly certain that half of the class had negative opinions of the concept right from the start, and they voiced these opinions during class. By then, I had become neutral on the subject.

But that is slightly a tangent of the actual topic. No, the schools aren't obligated to endorse opinions in class. Schools are state institutions with the purpose of educating their students via a state-required curriculum. This curriculum does not include Gay Equality.
Teaching a subject, including "tolerance" for others in an area or means outside of mandated lessons and subjects breaches the boundary of suitable state education.
These Gay lessons were obviously intended to instruct the students in equality, acceptance, and the normality of homosexuality and homosexuals. One teacher even said that "these children are our future leaders," and said that they must be taught such things. There is no purpose here in simply teaching gay awareness, or a completely free opinion of gays. The "literature" was composed in a way to directly lead students to beliefs that were intended by the instructors. In the book read to the class, students were presented with a girl with lesbian mothers, and an absolutely ludicrous situation in which the teacher tells the student that she cannot have two moms. Then, the girl's friends "back her up." The children listening to the story are then asked what is going on, and respond, affirming that very concept, and in doing so, affirming that this action is what they should do.

There is obviously an "agenda" in giving these lessons, as much as there is an agenda in any educational action: teach acceptance and equality of homosexuality, not simply awareness.
These children are not developed enough to the point that they can legitimately question what they are taught. They are directed from Point A to Point B in a subjective, moral and societal question concerning the topic, and have their hands held all the way to fulfill obviously pro-gay intention of the lessons.
This pro-gay intention constitutes a flagrant violation of the educational mandate for the education system. Schools, and especially elementary schools, cannot give political messages, or moral diatribes, or even religious seminars. This "Gay Day" overpasses the state's purpose in teaching children a curriculum that has been approved of by government officials and legislature elected by the people, and cannot be permitted in its current, intended form.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: againstthewind Open mindedness between vegetables and being open minded enough to try them and believing that homosexuality is wrong is two different things! The fact that they are wearing pink triangles is highly disturbing. Someone hiding their homosexuality doesn't impede their work. This video is a travesty of the school system. While there is diversity, they should leave that to the home, the school has NO authority to teach perversion as an acceptable means of expression of love. The greatest love was demonstrated in Christ (Ro 5:8)

Actually, an open mind is an open mind -- and that was one of the smartest and most articulate 3rd graders I think I've ever seen. I'm sorry you failed to understand the kid's analogy. I'm not sure what's disturbing about wearing pink triangles; it's not any different from seeing kids making papier-mache pinatas, which some could see as pagan idols; ditto Christmas trees, which I remember making in kindergarten. Are you really the person who gets to decide how a homosexual should feel about hiding their orientation? How do you know how it feels? Lastly, the school is not teaching perversion, and thankfully, they are also not teaching them to follow Christ, which I personally consider to be perverse. Tell you what: I won't decide what's perverse for your kids, and you don't decide what's perverse for mine. Deal?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim Evolution is not taught in school, nor is "counter-evolution." Nowhere in my elementary education was the word evolution even mentioned, as far as I can remember, and neither was created mentioned. The closest we came to that was talking about the solar system (NO Big Bang/creation discussion), the age of the earth, and fossils. I will admit, however, that around that point in time, my father talked to me about the age of the earth and fossils, and about he would trust the Bible more than a machine that would test rocks (carbon dating). That's what our home education was, but my father is an intelligent person despite what you may gather from this information. Everyone has their own beliefs I suppose. In fact, by the time we were taught evolution in 9th grade biology, I'm fairly certain that half of the class had negative opinions of the concept right from the start, and they voiced these opinions during class. By then, I had become neutral on the subject. But that is slightly a tangent of the actual topic. No, the schools aren't obligated to endorse opinions in class. Schools are state institutions with the purpose of educating their students via a state-required curriculum. This curriculum does not include Gay Equality. Teaching a subject, including "tolerance" for others in an area or means outside of mandated lessons and subjects breaches the boundary of suitable state education. These Gay lessons were obviously intended to instruct the students in equality, acceptance, and the normality of homosexuality and homosexuals. One teacher even said that "these children are our future leaders," and said that they must be taught such things. There is no purpose here in simply teaching gay awareness, or a completely free opinion of gays. The "literature" was composed in a way to directly lead students to beliefs that were intended by the instructors. In the book read to the class, students were presented with a girl with lesbian mothers, and an absolutely ludicrous situation in which the teacher tells the student that she cannot have two moms. Then, the girl's friends "back her up." The children listening to the story are then asked what is going on, and respond, affirming that very concept, and in doing so, affirming that this action is what they should do. There is obviously an "agenda" in giving these lessons, as much as there is an agenda in any educational action: teach acceptance and equality of homosexuality, not simply awareness. These children are not developed enough to the point that they can legitimately question what they are taught. They are directed from Point A to Point B in a subjective, moral and societal question concerning the topic, and have their hands held all the way to fulfill obviously pro-gay intention of the lessons. This pro-gay intention constitutes a flagrant violation of the educational mandate for the education system. Schools, and especially elementary schools, cannot give political messages, or moral diatribes, or even religious seminars. This "Gay Day" overpasses the state's purpose in teaching children a curriculum that has been approved of by government officials and legislature elected by the people, and cannot be permitted in its current, intended form.

You raise an interesting point here, but I'd like to bring up a couple of things.

First, according to the mission statements and curricula of every school I have taught at (only three, admittedly, but I'd bet it holds true for the vast majority of schools) tolerance and acceptance most definitely are part of the curriculum.
Second, (and this goes for everyone that's been talking about the outrage this school is perpetrating on the parents) the school depicted in the video is a private school, not a public school -- so every single kid in that school is there solely by the choice of his or her parents.

So, is awareness of homosexuality inappropriate to teach at this age? I personally would say no, considering how much sexuality children are exposed to through the media. The school didn't make any references to sexuality past the concepts of love and marriage, and that is something kids should already be aware of. Since there are children at this school, and presumably at many schools across the US, who have same sex parents, don't you think that ignoring homosexuality would also send a political message? Shouldn't the questions and curiosities that kids might naturally have be addressed at school, if nowhere else?

[againstthewind]

Quote by: Rinoa Of course we judge, it is when we force those judgements onto other people, and use them against that person for no other reason than hurtingthe other person that it is a problem. It taught simply that we do not punish perversion, a stance, that you as a godfearing christian ought to uphold. The Pharisees brought a woman before Jesus stating that she had committed adultery, and wanted to know what punishment she should receive. Jesus responded by saying 'let him without sin cast the first stone' This shows that by casting stones(judging) we ourselves are sinning. Would you teach your child to sin by using stone casting words like 'fag'? No. Would you want someone to help prevent your child from sinning in that manner? Yes. Whether or not homosexuality is right in the eyes of god was not the issue here. By teaching tolerance the issue is only whether or not it is our job to judge them for their sins.

WHEN WE DO JUDGE, WE ARE TO JUDGE BY SCRIPTURE AND NOT WHAT WE SEE OR ARE HEARD, WE ARE TO JUDGE CAREFULLY AND NOT RASHLY LIKE THE HEATHEN.

I USED TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL AND I AM NOT ANYMORE BECAUSE IT IS PERVERSION, THE BIBLE CALLS IT THAT AND TEACHING CHILDREN TO TOLERATE PERVERSION IS NOT AT ALL RIGHT. I AM PROCLAIMING SCRIPTURE AND NOT CONDEMNING HOMOSEXUALS BUT POINTING OUT THAT IT IS WRONG AND IS NO BETTER THAN MURDER, STEALING, LYING OR FORNICATING EITHER.

THE PHARISEES BROUGHT THE WOMAN TO JESUS BECAUSE IT WAS A LEGAL QUESTION THAT THEY WERE CONFRONTING HIM WITH

JEWISH LAW- STONE HER
ROMAN LAW- YOU CAN'T STONE HER

SO IF HE WERE GOING TO SAY YOU CAN'T STONE HER, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH BEING AGAINST THE LAW OF MOSES. IF TJESUS WOULD HAVE SAID YES, THEN HE COULD HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF USURPING THE ROMANS AND SHOWING BLATANT DISREGARD OF THE ROMAN LAW.

ANOTHER INSTANCE IS WHEN THEY ASKED IS IT LAWFUL TO PAY TAXES TO CAESAR AND HE ASKED FOR A COIN WITH CAESAR'S FACE ON IT AGAIN THEY WERE USING THE JEWISH LAW VS. ROMAN LAW HERE.

HE FORGAVE BUT HE ALSO SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE PHARISEES (MANY PEOPLE OFTEN LEAVE THAT OUT) ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BELIEVE ONLY IN THE LOVING JESUS AS OPPOSED TO THE WRATHFUL JESUS WHO IS TO JUDGE ALL MEN BY HIS WORD THE BIBLE.

HOMOSEXUALS ARE GOING TO BE ASKED, ALONG WITH ADULTERERS, FORNICATORS, LIARS, THOSE WHO PRACTICE MAGIC ARTS, ARE SEXUALLY IMMMORAL, SWINDLERS, IDOLATERS, ETC. WHY DIDN'T THEY LISTEN TO THOSE WHO TOLD THEM THAT IT WAS WRONG ACCORDING TO HIS WORD. THEY WILL HAVE NO EXCUSE BECAUSE IT WAS PROCLAIMED TO THEM BEFOREHAND.

ULTIMATELY, THE QUESTION BECOMES, IS THIS JUDGING HYPOCRITICALLY? NO. THE SCRIPTURE SAYS IT IS WRONG AND THE LAW GOVERNING HUMAN BEHAVIOR HAS NOT BEEN REPEALED

HOWEVER, PEOPLE WHO PREACH AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS CALL THEM HOMOSEXUALS AND NOT FAGS, DYKES, ETC. THOSE SEEM TO BE THE PEOPLE ON THE STREET

[againstthewind]

Perversion is perversion and the Bible is not a ridiculous source. Many people still quote Aristotle, Marx, Darwin and Shakespeare, what makes a ridiculous source is ultimately my question, would you call the Qur'an a ridiculous source? What about the Vedas? Or what about a prejudicial judge that hates homosexuals?

the charge saying that the Bible is a ridiculous is a ridiculous statement-

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: againstthewind Perversion is perversion and the Bible is not a ridiculous source. Many people still quote Aristotle, Marx, Darwin and Shakespeare, what makes a ridiculous source is ultimately my question, would you call the Qur'an a ridiculous source? What about the Vedas? Or what about a prejudicial judge that hates homosexuals? the charge saying that the Bible is a ridiculous is a ridiculous statement-

Show me one example of a person quoting any of those people you named as a source of truth, rather than as someone who formulated a thought in a useful way. As for the Qur'an and the Vedas, of course they are ridiculous sources if they are used as authorities. The only proof you have of the Bible's veracity is your faith, yet you use its words as evidence -- that is ridiculous. You are more than welcome to base your belief on the Bible, but basing our society's rules on it is illogical and unconstitutional.

[Zinkovich]

I USED TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL AND I AM NOT ANYMORE BECAUSE IT IS PERVERSION,

Meanwhile, I spent my entire adolescence decrying the evils of homosexuality during my school chapels and still couldn't change my ways as much as I tried to deny them.

For some of us it isn't a choice, but a biological compulsion. I cannot bring myself to become aroused by the female body, and have always been aware that I was only attracted to males since the 6th grade, when homosexuality was a relatively unknown thing to me. In fact, I thought I was schizophrenic or something, and even remember asking one of my favorite teachers if I was going to be an insane serial killer or something because another kid on the playground told me his dad told him only male sadists or rapists are attracted to men.

In fact, looking back at it all- the pain my lack of understanding concerning why I was biologically "different" probably could have been avoided by programs like the one in this very thread. From such a perspective, I can't help but support educating children about what homosexuality is and is not.

[Jack]

Perversion is perversion

Every opinion has its context. There's no absolute standard regarding sexuality. Until a few years ago, oral sex was considered a perversion. What changed that perception? The fact that straight, church-going people discovered the pleasure of oral sex. What does the Bible have to say about oral sex? Nothing? Then how can the conduct of gays, who by and large only practice oral sex, be called a perversion? The Bible condemns homosexuality because it was written 2000 years ago or more by Middle Eastern people. Their culture had prohibitions against homosexuality and anything else that didn't directly result in more childbirth. Small, oppressed tribes of nomadic people would have a good reason to encourage an increase in their numbers. Pretending god agreed with them was a good way to convince everyone of the "rightness" of child production.

the charge saying that the Bible is a ridiculous is a ridiculous statement-

Boats that hold 2 of every species of animals, people who live to 600 years of age, a guy who raises the dead and walks on water...come on, does this sound like a book of reality to anyone not blinded by faith?

[Lullaby Chainer]

As someone who's still in school, there is a HUGE acceptance even by teachers to make fun of gays. I'm not even kidding.. teachers are OK with this.

Racism is bad, and you will be dealt with if you make fun of someone's race in my school.. thankfully.

Intolerance of homosexuality is a whole 'nuther story. If someone IS gay, and comes forth with this fact and complains.. then the school may do something if he or she is being abused. But in all other situations, "gay" and "fag" and "queer" and "dyke" as insults are thrown around so easily, even by teachers, it's really quite sad.. many of the students are in fact homosexuals but are too embarrassed to stand up for themselves and thus, homosexual hate and intolerance runs a muck while society HAS conquered previous sick social ignorances like racism (for the most part).

You don't hear much complaints when racial differences are celebrated at school at young ages. But oh my word.. homosexuality? They can't do that! Homosexual hate is 100% OK at school! Who cares about the safety and well-being of our homosexual students.

Seriously, I mean GAWD, you'd see this kind of reaction if you tried to defend blacks back in slavery times. If you have a freggin problem with homosexual tolerance at school, then you had better have a freggin problem with racial tolerance at school. Homosexuals don't deserve an abusive time when they want to get an education or teach others. Just like someone shouldn't have an abusive time for the color of their skin. We've conquered racism through education and acceptance, why are you so afraid to conquer yet another harmful ignorant hate that is abusing groups of students starting really in middle school and high school and beyond?