Homosexual, Bisexual, and Transgender tolerance should be briefly taught at schools.

"THE FACT THAT MURDERS ON THE BASIS OF HOMOSEXUALITY MAKES HOMOSEXUAL TOLERANCE A PRIORITY." Why should one group receive special treatment over another? Murder happens every day in every land, and always has since the dawn of man. There has never been a time where people were more accepting of homosexuality. Its working itself out in its own way. Students can also form groups for awareness on their own time. Teachers can go to rallies outside of school to raise awareness against intolerance. My chief argument is that preferential treatment should not be taught at schools at all, as it is inappropriate to do so. Inexorably, if you give one group special pleading, you end up alienating another. And in that way, you would actually increase the stigma, not ameliorate it. "MY QUESTION IS IF YOU CAN STOP OR REDUCE THIS VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION WITH MAYBE 3 HOURS A YEAR OUT OF YOUR KID'S SCHOOLING, THEN WHY NOT?" Because it is not a school's responsibility to indoctrinate children in any way. As a parent, its my job and my responsibility to instruct my child about what is (in)appropriate on social issues. As they age they then can begin to forge their own beliefs as they see fit. Schools, however, are institutions for learning fundamentals. Pandering to social agendas is a huge problem on college campuses, and has been for quite awhile now. There has been this shift for the last 100 years or so where many college professors smuggle in their own agendas and biases and launder them through a legitimate curriculum. All it has produced is dumb graduates with an inflated sense of ego and a martyr's complex. Its time for schools to remember what a school is for. These kids are being manipulated by teachers and professors because they are young and impressionable. Woe to them, as it is not their place. "I AM A LIBERTARIAN. I LOVE GUN RIGHT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR CONNECTION." There is no connection to gun rights and homosexuality. My reason for mentioning it was an illustration of faulty logic. The logic for removing gun rights is that it would decrease violence. It hasn't done that. Similarly, putting up red ribbons only further alienates the person who doesn't feel that homosexuality is natural. They would be more apt and prone to falling in with a bad group with more extremist views. It would be more dangerous for homosexuals, as it creates this "Us vs Them" atmosphere. But since you talk about libertarianism, I assume that you could understand what I was referring to in my prior post. If schools teach that homosexuality should be tolerated, then the one's that don't agree are removed their Constitutional rights. Every one is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, so long as it does not infringe, impinge, or impede someone else's rights. Why the unilateral support of one group over another at a school that should remain neutral on such issues so they can avoid it? "HOMOSEXUALS ARE JUST AS MUCH STUDENTS AS HETEROSEXUALS" Of course they are. And they should receive the same rights and protections afforded under the Constitution. But schools have nothing to do with that. At most, a school should quell violence and disruption by curbing violence, not trying to force people to side with a particular social agenda. Instead of saying, its not right to hit him because he's gay, why not say, its not right to him him, period? Do you understand the difference I am referring to? Why say, don't bad-mouth him because he's a Christian. Rather, say, don't bad-mouth him, period. Extrapolate that neutrality for anything, and that is how schools should handle it. "THAT BOY IN MASS... DIED FROM A HATE CRIME... HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT" What is a "Hate Crime?" Its nonsense. Is a persons motive supposed to make the fact that they killed someone greater because of it? That's absurd. And what is happening now is that it is setting itself up to erode personal freedoms, not protect them. Its like affirmative action. We all can recognize that its trying to do the right thing. And that's fantastic, but sometimes our good intentions have terrible consequences. The reality is that it is racism in reverse, and ends up perpetuating the very thing it was supposed to take away. These "Hate Crimes" are exactly the same, as it sets a precedence for the motive over the action of the crime. "THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN FAVOR OF EDUCATION OF THE STUDENTS AS OPPOSED TO KEEPING THEM IN THE DARK OF THEIR PARENTS BELIEFS" They've done no such thing. The last few Supreme Court cases concerning schools have come by way of religious expressions made by students, and whether or not it is unconstitutional. What you are referring to was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to not teach creationism in science class, and a similar case in Georgia, as it is not considered legitimate scientific material. Consequently, that bears no relevance to anything, nor does it prove that a parent can be usurped by a school system. In any case, you have neglected to explain to me why it is a schools job to teach children about social issues.