Gay Anglican Tapioca-Eating Marylanders

I imagine some of the first to join the Unitarian Jihad will be members of the Montgomery County, MD, school board, who sought to teach a curriculum where students are encouraged to "develop a sexual identity and that gender identity is 'a person's internal sense of knowing whether he or she is male or female.'" Students are taught, on a "myths and facts worksheet," that the correct answer to the "myth" that "loving people of the same sex is immoral (sinful)" is "many religious denominations do not believe this. For example, in 2002 the Anglican Church in Canada began ritual blessings of same-sex unions. What is universally understood is that intolerance and hatred is wrong."

--Hmmmm...The "Anglican Church in Canada." Now there's a surprise! The "Anglican Church in Canada" is to North American Christianity what a day-old tapioca-and-cold-mutton sandwich is to North American cuisine. Rev 3:16 says it all.

--I guess "universally" doesn't take a billion muslims into account. Intolerance and hatred certainly seem to be getting pretty good poll numbers in islamic countries these days. Perhaps "universally" in this context really means, "as understood by all the armchair-liberal self-appointed cognoscenti on the Monty County School Board--the only people whose opinions we care about anyway."

--Having written the last, I do agree at least that the last statement should be universally understood. But does believing homosexuality is a sin (as the Bible unmistakably teaches) imply hatred of homosexuals, as the curriculum all but explicitly states? If I acknowledge the litany of sins in Rom 1 for what they are (and homosexuality is only one among many), do I have to go join Westboro Baptist "Church?" Or can I acknowledge that they are part of our society, not care what they do with each other in their own bedrooms, not seek to deny them any rights every other citizen has under our Constitution, even laugh at an occaisional episode of Queer Eye, but still be concerned for them, just as I would be for a friend caught up in gossip or boasting?

--And what does "intolerance" mean in this context? Does it mean radical gay activists have the right to force their "lifestyle" down my throat (so to speak...)? It's "universally" accepted that I--pig-dog, fascist, mysogyistic, phallo-centric, war-mongering, jackbooted, imperialist KKKhristian that I am--cannot force my beliefs on gays or other pet groups of the left. Must I accept the real agenda behind this curriculum change: proselytizing a rival and hostile religion's sacrament? That's what the radical gay-leftist community is doing, whether they realize it or not. It's not the only sacrament, of course: Anti-Americanism, hatred of George Bush and all Republikkkans, abortion, and the elimination of masculinity in all forms are some of the others. Do I have a stake and a say in the matter when our country starts to look as effete as the EU (where lean and hungry barbarians from the south threaten to tear down society altogether), or as ineffectual as that high school debating society that calls itself the UN (and our presidents start to resemble its squamous Secretary-General, Kofi "Jaw Jaw Brinks" Annan)? Or must I just roll over and endure it (so to speak...)?

--Fortunately, a judge has put a stop to this socialist-relativist absurdity, after parents brought suit. Here are the sordid details.

Monk

Update: I agree with The Owl at Powerline concerning the judge's opinion in the case: "Judge Williams shows that, in promoting its gay rights agenda, the County chose to plunge into a discussion of religion to the point of advising students which churches were enlightened...and which are bigoted and theologically flawed"

Yep. As I said, this curriculum just makes the real issue more obvious than most: this is a rival religion attempting to defeat and supplant Christianity, not just an issue of "health" or "tolerance."

Update Update: The Volokh Conspiracy has a very good rundown on the issues.