I believe my oposition is to your concern of "inclusion". That is the problem for me. Kids have for millennia teased each other over all kinds of differences. To discipline how they treat another student is the usual response in these things.
An attitude of mind your own business. Don't be rude, disrespectful, to your class mates.
Inclusion, is the promotion of.
There is the problem. You don't need to "promote" Homosexualty to children. Nor censor a Christian parent and the scritptural upbringing concerning these things for their kids. If I were aware of my child being abusive to a classmate having two daddy's, I would get the message accross the child had no more control over that than my child has over how I behave. How would they feel if it were me....It is unchristian TO TEASE ETC.
Non inclusive...
A child comes from a home whose parents are drug addicts. I feel for that Chi;d, but I do not want my daughter to have an "inclusive" relationship with that child, that my child is frequently at her house, stay the night etc.
Inclusive is the promotion of acceptance of the lifestyle as ok...
Training, discipline in Christian ethics instead.
But kindness and respect and compassion towards others instead.
Inclusion and promotion (despite having the potential to have a degree of overlap) aren't the same thing.
Nobody here is suggesting that teachers should be "promoting homosexuality" to students.
Stopping short of overt bullying doesn't mean exclusion is any less in the realm of "make people feel like second class citizens".
For instance, if elementary students are doing a show & tell about their vacation. And every student with heterosexual parents is allowed to get up and show a picture of their family at Disneyworld and talk about all the fun rides their parents took them on, but one student isn't allowed to get up and show the same pictures and talk about the same stuff (because their mom is married to another woman). That's not other students bullying, nobody's name calling or punching...however that still instills the notion that their family is "second class"
With regards to the higher grades. Having certain content structured around exclusively hetero scenarios can do the same.
For instance, let's say there's a 17 year old 11th grader who's gay. During sex ed, only hetero-specific topics are covered for things like safe sex and protective measures. Even if nobody is engaging in overt "gay-bashing", it's still ostracizing (and actually doing that student a disservice as well as when it comes the differing risks associated for each group).
Simply talking about something isn't necessarily promotion.
Hypothetical. Pretend that there was no constitutional restriction pertaining to religion in schools.
Now, imagine if during school, everyone who was Hindu, Jewish, or Muslim (teachers and students) were able to freely discuss their respective religions... but since Christians made up a minority in the hypothetical school, they weren't allowed to do the same. They weren't being actively bullied for it or name-called, they were just relegated to having to keep it to themselves and deal with the fact that the teacher talked about everyone else's situation except their own. And when Christians protested this because they wanted some inclusion, all of the Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim parents said "we don't want that to be discussed, it should be up to us parents to decide whether or not we want our children to hear about Christianity".
For you, as a Christian, I'd imagine that probably wouldn't sit well with you, correct?
rationalwiki.org
creation.com
