Someone already helped you with the "they didn't say educational" part of your question. As far as "going to ****," we obviously don't believe the same stuff, do we? IMO, if there is a god, he/she would've created everyone, even the NixNot's. To treat homosexuality like a disease and homosexuals like deviants would be against what god would want.
Are you implying that it is OK to treat people with diseases a different way?
That would be a difference in opinion as many (not all) people are against of homosexuality because of religious preferences.
I'd be curious to hear what rationalization they use.
Also, how is not mentioning sexuality in grades before 8th grade be considered "deviant"? I would argue that many people don't want any type of sexuality references in those grades. Do you consider that as "deviance" also?
I'm not sure this makes sense. I didn't say "not mentioning sexuality in grades before 8th is considered deviant."
But to attempt
to make sense of your post, because I think the gist is to ask why I think this bill is bad since it only limits a teacher up until the 8th grade, I would have to point out that we had a *** ed class in 6th or 7th grade. I had my first crush in the fourth grade, and my first boyfriend in the sixth grade. I think it would be perfectly natural for a kid who is comfortable with a teacher to ask him/her if having feelings for someone of the same *** is normal. That teacher should have the right to try to comfort the kid, or to tell the kid they don't feel comfortable talking about it, and they should talk to their parents. Edit: quote phail.
[sm]Edited, Apr 24th 2011 6:23pm by Belkira