Why Alberta parents need Bill 44 to protect their children from the disturbing political agenda of their teachers

As what will likely be the totality of this blog's coverage of Bill #44 (which I tweeted about on occasion), I present to you:

Gay-Straight Student Alliances in Alberta Schools: A GUIDE FOR TEACHERS, a disgusting document put out by our dispicable "friends" in the Alberta Teachers Federation.

I got a lot of flack for noting that this post brings up this topic:

Should your child show intolerance towards a child who identifies themself as homosexual we reserve the right to instruct your child in the value of tolerance. Understanding your child will be removed from this institution and all other publicly funded institutions until such time as he / she or HeShe has received such counselling they will not be permitted to attend any public institution in Alberta, Do you wish to opt your child out of any sensitivity training required due to their intolerance of others based upon sexual orientation? _____

I quite rightfully call right out on here the hypocrisy of the anti-Bill#44 crowd. Every time I have stated that Alberta Teachers are already pushing a pro-uranist agenda on schoolchildren I have been the horrible monster for speaking the truth. Yet here we go again, with parents being advised that they have the power to punish children for saying a basic fundamental truth: faggots and sapphists are sick and depraved individuals. They do not feel love, they only live in lust and purile sexual practises. They live a disgusting lifestyle which nobody should ever have to accept.

Now we have this little PDF file. Exhibit B, you might call it.

Current research indicates that between 3 and 10 per cent of people identify as nonheterosexual (Frankowski 2004; Ryan and Futterman 1998). However, these statistics
may be greatly underreported due to the societal stigmatization and fear of violence that are often associated with publicly identifying as nonheterosexual.

At least we got this silly 10% myth pushed a little farther back out of the mainstream. Now its the upper bound, and acknowledged as flights of fancy (ha!) at that. I like the argument though. Like this argument it doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny, but it can be used quite effectively in favour, of, say: conservatism. This man is secretly a conservative. He hates ass piracy, Barack Obama, tax money assisting the poor and destitute, and gun control. If you need proof of this, look at his public approval of them. (see, this game is easy)