You left off a very vital section of the article. It's important to post the entire article because despite the fact that you posted the link, some people may stop where you left off assuming you posted all there was to read. So, to continue the article...."But the NUT claims that it needs to go further and early years teachers should be given "the skills and tools to challenge racism, sexism and homophobia" and abusive language. The NUT document says: "In the case of homophobia, the use of the word 'gay' is prevalent in primary schools and young boys who are perceived to not conform to masculine stereotypes are at risk of bullying, isolation and social exclusion. "It is too late to wait until primary school to challenge prejudice and intolerant abusive language. "The EYFS curriculum needs to alert early years teachers to their responsibilities to challenge gender stereotypes and to challenge language that is negative or prejudiced." It adds: "It is particularly important to begin to make three to five-year-olds aware of the range of families that exist in the UK today; families with one mum, one mum and dad, two mums, two dads, grandparents, adoptive parents, guardians etc. "There will be parents who are gay or lesbian who will want to be reassured that their children will be safe in the setting. "Many gay parents do not 'come out' to their nursery schools because they fear their children will be bullied as a result of the sexual orientation of their parents. "Now that civil partnerships are legal, nursery settings need to use the curriculum to educate children about all types of families and to promote respect and understanding." But Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, branded the demands as "ridiculous". He said: "I very much doubt that three-year-olds will be able to grasp the implications of these things anyway. "Apart from that, even if they do, it seems completely wrong for the state education system to try and brainwash youngsters in this way. "It is achingly politically correct and it's a sad reflection on the direction state education is taking, with the emphasis on teaching politically correct values, rather than worthwhile subjects." Hugh McKinney, of the National Family Campaign, added: "To attach any kind of value judgement to the views and statements of three-year-olds is simply nonsense. "Nobody condones homophobic language but to try and teach impressionable, immature youngsters about issues such as this is simply wrong for their stage of development. "The state system should not be the basis for such teaching until children are older and more able to form their own judgements." A spokeswoman for the NUT last night defended educating very young children about gay relationships. She said: "It's never too early to encourage respect. It's about valuing every child and the relationship they live in and ensuring all children show respect to that relationship as well." The point of the article is NOT to promote homosexuality. It is, as the article states... "to encourage respect" .... and I agree! It is never too early to teach children that not everyone is the same. The Lord commands us to love everyone. Love includes respect. If it is true... ".... some three-year-olds are already using homophobic language." then this is important instruction! Wouldn't you educate or chastise a child against using slurs against blacks or Jews?? I’m both annoyed and saddened when I hear people use hateful words to describe one group but they would not dare use similar words to describe another! Why is it okay to use the word "fag" but not the words nigger or kike. What hypocrisy! A hateful word is a hateful word, regardless to whom it's directed. And such words should NOT be part of a Christians* vocabulary, period!Lyte* Or anyone's vocabulary for that matter.