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

Allow me to clarify from the outset my intentions for taking this debate. My intent is not to persuade you or the reader why homosexual tolerance shouldn't be taught in schools for reasons of disliking homosexuality or anything else. Rather, my argument will focus on why it is not a school's place to indoctrinate children on social matters -- why they should strive for neutrality. "A MINNESOTA BOY WAS MURDERED BY A CLASSMATE FOR BEING A HOMOSEXUAL." Does the motive make it more or less heinous? Suppose a person was murdered for glancing at someone. Should the penalty for the crime be worse because it goes against some arbitrary social condition, or should murder simply be charged on the basis of itself? Uncovering motive only helps establish why the murder was committed, and by whom. It doesn't (or shouldn't, in my opinion) make the penalty more or less offensive. The action or actions, I believe, are the only pertinent details in sentencing. "ALL ACROSS THE NATION AND THE WORLD PEOPLE ARE BULLIED, DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND MURDERED FOR BEING HOMOSEXUAL." All around the nation and the world people are bullied, discriminated against and murdered for being fat, being white, being black, being Christian, being atheist, being Muslim, being a girl, etc, etc. The greater thing in my mind is the action. Secondary is the motive. "IF THERE WERE BRIEF ASSEMBLIES TEACHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT WRONG, IS NATURAL... VIOLENT CRIMES WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED." 1. What evidence is there to suggest that it would? People said that if you took guns away from the people that it would reduce the murder rate. In many cities, in actually increased it. 2. Why should it be a school's job, particularly public school, to teach you about morality -- incidentally, their own biased morality? Shouldn't that be your parents job? Something tells me you wouldn't like it if a school was scheduling a special time to tell you how terrible homosexuality is. If so, why should others not conforming to your view be subjected to your morals, when you don't like it when others impose them on you? Golden Rule, anyone??? A school is supposed to teach fundamentals, like arithmetic, language, science, etc -- you know, what schools once solely focused on before they turned in to a mouthpiece for a social agenda. A public school should not be making moral pronouncements unless it directly affects the school and its students. Invariably, you teaching that homosexuality is not wrong tells the students protected under the First Amendment that their opinion is wrong and is invalid. And I'll tell you what, if my kid tells me about ANY social indoctrination (whether its homosexuality is bad or good, or anything else) going on in her public school, I'll be calling a lawyer promptly. 3. Thirdly, some people believe that homosexuality is not natural and is immoral. If we are all entitled to our own personal opinions, then what grants a public school the right to unilaterally support a specific moral outlook? Shouldn't public schools be neutral in those regards to avoid usurping the student's parents? I don't believe it is a school's job to indoctrinate and spread propaganda in any direction. It is their job to teach the fundamentals. Now, I would agree that during times of "social studies" or history, time could be allotted to discuss these things. But a teacher should remain neutral in the debate with a cool, calm, and collected detachment so as to not bias the students, but rather to mediate as a judge would do.