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

--- "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." + The fact is that homosexuality is the most open hate in America. Contestably with Muslims. And I think that if Muslim hate crimes are high as well and discrimination and intolerance, then 3 hours a year out of school to educate students is acceptable. But homosexual hate crimes are chief and can be reduced. Social assemblies and influences have proven to be effective. This can be as well. Why is it a bad thing to reduce violence and discrimination? The alienation of another group does not increase the stigma. Drug awareness is at schools but this has not risen teen pregnancies. Georgia health classes teach about STDs and the numbe of teen AIDS cases have decreased as well as pregnancies. --- "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. " + ...Well. I'd like to see some evidence of how education of a concept is bad for students. It's people like you that want to hide kids from concepts like evolutio because you personally disagree. What about removing the Holocaust from the curriculum for Holocaust denyers? Or removing burgers from Home Ec class because of vegan parents? --- "Similarly, putting up red ribbons only further alienates the person who doesn't feel that homosexuality is natural." + As putting up Red Ribbons now alienates the drug user, which is the intention. --- "It would be more dangerous for homosexuals, as it creates this "Us vs Them" atmosphere." + Let's look at other social movements. Red Ribbon Week against drugs. Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms. Etc. Neither of these created an Us vs. Them atmosphere. This atmosphere, however, is going on now and can be reduced with social education. Violence and discrimination are going on now and if you're truly against those things, then you should be for reducing them. --- 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. + No Constitutional right gives you the right to hide your child from concepts that are logical and beneficial. The Supreme Court ruled the opposite. Evolution is taught in schools because every child has the right to learn the concept. If you want your child to be a prejudice gay basher then that's your loss unless you reinforce other, contrary concepts. --- 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? + The Buddhist lobby might want to have math removed from the curriculum because it is a human created concept. The Satanist lobby might want to remove teaching of Abrahamic religion. The French lobby want to have Latin removed from the curriculum so that more students will study French. Each student has the right to learn eavery concept every other student learns. You can't pull a concept that makes sense and is beneficial because you personally disagree. Some evangelical abstinence supporters are trying to pull condoms from the curriculum despite their helpfulness and the number of lives they may save. They also have successfully pulled Harry Potter books from some schools despite the fact that children were reading at a higher level and were actually interested in reading. Homosexual awareness assemblies would reduce violence and each person has the right to check their kid out that day so the kid can become prejudice. --- "Instead of saying, its not right to hit him because he's gay, why not say, its not right to him him, period?" + What about discrimination still? And physical violence will still occur. I understand your point but it wouldn't be nearly as effective. --- "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." + Ok. Even if you may not understand that people are targeted because of the sexuality, race and creed, people reading this will. Hate crimes exist. --- "Consequently, that bears no relevance to anything, nor does it prove that a parent can be usurped by a school system." + I'm very much aware of what I'm referring to. And it proves that a parent cannot keep all kids from learning about a logical, beneficial concept because they want their kid to be unaware of concepts and unable to think for themself. --- In any case, you have neglected to explain to me why it is a schools job to teach children about social issues. + Ah.