You have said only one thing with which I disagree:
simply because a child that has unwittingly been placed in that position might be "embarrassed" if it is not
I clearly stated that I agree with the neutral presentation of the different types of families. Two mommies or two daddies is not a lesson in sex education. Nor need it be a value judgement positive or negative. I saw nothing in the article that says it was.
a child faced with a situation in which such an arrangement was condemend would feel more than a bit "embarassed". Embarassment implies shame on the part of the child as if they did something wrong. Condemnation of their families would also result harassment by the other students and that is something inappropriate for an innocent child.
But your opinion is appreciated and your rights respected.
Hmmm.
A reasoned, calm response to my probably unreasoned, agitated literary aggression.
I am amazed, sir, and now withdraw from conflict but cannot refrain from remarking that your stance is remarkably unlike that of most libertarians with opinions on the freedom of homosexuality.
Most which I have dealt with go into absolute hover over the issue, inexplicably so, since the majority of our society absolutely reject the homosexual and the lifestyle, making the issue one that is simply not worth defending to most libertarians, as their conservative values usually override their libertarian permissiveness, particularly on this subject.
You have principles and values, misguided, somewhat, but apparent nevertheless.
And no, I do not attack libertarians, I attack the tacit support that their neutral-passive stance lends to the furtherance of the agenda of the homosexuals.
But were they to feel otherwise, they would not be libertarians, would they?
Well, all I can say to your posts, is THIS is only one reason adoption by homosexuals is illegal in many states.
If you do just a bit of research you will soon realize, born that way is a myth, and one of the biggest lies foisted on the public by these activists.