I know this one will get me smeared as a right wing extremist on Q-Tips again ("A Sign I Have Made It", "Update"), but it has to be said. Being gay does not grant you blanket immunity. More importantly, if an act would be impermissible if it involved an adult heterosexual and a child, it is just as impermissible if it involves a homosexual adult and a child.

The reason I mention this is because for too long "sex education" has involved some elements which are rather disturbing. And they have been excused under the rubric of educating children about alternate lifestyles and providing support for gay youths. Obviously this has been in the news lately thanks to Obama's safe schools czar, but it is a topic I have long argued ("Overly Sensitive").

Let me create a hypothetical situation. A gentleman of advanced years asks permission to speak in schools. His argument is that young girls are often frightened and confused by their sexuality. Their first efforts at establishing their sexual identities often result in mockery form their classmates. So, to make this time of life easier, he wants to provide the young girls with important information to help them form their sexual identity. To this end he provides them with explicit descriptions of sex acts between adult men and juvenile girls, as well as the locations and phone numbers of several swingers groups that promote anonymous sex between strangers, and the addresses of the local pickup bars.

We would rightly assume such a gentleman was a dirty old man looking to exploit young women.

But when we make him gay, and turn his wards into young boys, suddenly his actions are immune to criticism and he is held forth as an exemplar of enlightened social philosophy. We are told without such men, society would collapse into anti-gay bigotry.

Now, let me make a few points. First, does the gay community really want its reputation to be that of the group that sends old men into schools to tell young men where to go be easy pickups? Second, after decades of telling us homosexuality is not all about tawdry bars and anonymous restroom encounters, why does so much of gay sex ed center on precisely that sort of material? If a straight man described gays in the terms of much of this material, he would be denounced as a bigot, but when gays do it, they are called enlightened*.

But there is nothing good in teaching gay children that their future is to be mad eup of hook ups in bars, that the highest aspiration is to be the most popular diva on the club circuit, or that the proper role sexual roles are sugar daddy and pre-teen concubine. Putting this forth to those confused about their sexuality is a terrible disservice, and a disservice to everyone. Gay children, or those who are uncertain of their sexuality, develop quite unhealthy sexual identities. And, on the other hand, those who know they are not gay develop the belief that these dirty old men and the world of anonymous sex and underage pickups is the reality of homosexuality. In other words, far from defending the world from homophobia, this "thin lavender line" is creating nothing but sexually disturbed young men and budding bigots, thanks to the unhealthy images they promote.

And yet, because they are gay, we are prohibited form saying a word about it. And that is the greatest disservice of all. After all, to place anything off limits, to disallow any debate, is to enshrine error. Whether the immunity is based on race or sex or orientation or religion or wealth does not matter. The moment inquiry is closed, error is inevitable.

----------------------------------------------------

* This is hardly unique. Blacks can make generalizations about other blacks that would be deemed horribly offensive if made by whites. Likewise, feminists can caricature women as irrational, emotion driven, and the rest of the positions they denounce when stated by men. Sometimes this is to advance an agenda, soemtimes it is simply because feminists and blacks really believe the stereotypes. The reason doesn't matter. My point is that it appears stereotypes are only offensive when stated by members of another group. (Or sometimes members of the group with the wrong political philosophy.)

----------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I do not mean to say all sex education is improper. I am not well versed enough to make such a blanket statement. I do believe education in sexual matters, as well as "values education", the rubric under which sex ed is often smuggled into unfriendly schools, are properly parental functions, but I am resigned to schools often feeling the need to intrude upon parental responsibilities.

However, I am confident in stating that the impression made by many of the more aggressive pro-gay sex ed curricula are offensive, if for no other reason than the stereotype they present. Were I gay, I would be horrified at the caricature that my supposed defenders are putting forth.