[zozbot234]

Do you think kids honestly care in the least about anyone's sexual preferences or orientations? They haven't even started to approach the timeframe for going through that kind of biological development. Some things should just be kept private by default and reserved for whenever more nuanced discussion becomes possible, with proper content warnings being given beforehand. Let's not sexualize people without meaningful consent.

[Atheros]

GP asked two very simple yes/no questions. I think you should answer them before he answers yours.

[zozbot234]

GP's questions are contingent on the definition of "gay", which most people would see as inherently sexual. After all, there's many people who routinely have close-knit, usually pair-bonded affectionate relationships with unrelated people of the same sex. Such as (to take the clearest examples available to us) the compadres and comadres of present-day Latin America and the Mediterranean or, historically, the 'blood brothers' of ancient tribal cultures in Eurasia and elsewhere. But these relationships do not usually involve a sexual component, and thus are not considered "gay". In other respects though, they're essentially indistinguishable from affectionate relationships between people not of the same sex. It's a mistake to think that "gay" relates to anything other than the sexual.

Would I object to an elementary school book featuring two compadres or comadres who deeply care for each other and teach the value of enduring friendship and affection? Of course not. But that's a far cry from outright depiction of sexual practices.