Lifestyle Politics
The term "lifestyle politics" was used in oblique regard for the controversial issues of teaching social tolerance for alternative sexual orientations in the public school. The crucible for this issue is that its empirically certain that the core sexual orientation of the race is heterosexual. The species depends on it for its continued survival if for no other reason. Regardless of individual preferences and life circumstances, few cultures would argue against the traditional family as the primary model for pair bonding and child rearing the world over. In comparison, claims that some people are genetically predisposed toward homosexuality are decidedly less well validated. Many issues of nature verses nurture are controversial enough to reasonably argue that all alternative sexual orientations including homosexuality, bisexuality, polygamy, spouse swapping, or whatever else, simply exist in the realm of acquired tastes and therefore are arbitrary in nature.
To indulge a rhetorical spin on things, each could be said to reflect a religious preference as the term might apply to moral and lifestyle choices. It is certainly necessary that the primary school system teach reasonable tolerance for legally admissible social, religious, and lifestyle differences. It is a constitutionally mandated and sacred obligation of citizenship. Nevertheless, it must be must be emphasized again and again that any legitimate obligation to tolerance does not presuppose any obligation to entanglement, participation, or advocacy for or against. Nor are the children even at liberty to choose for themselves until they come of legal age. That kind of choice making, within legal limits, falls to their parents or guardians and in a more circumscribed and provisional degree, to the government as represented by the public schools and their mandated core curriculum. Regarding this, the schools should never yield to being advocates for any special interest group or yield to enslaving the children with factional agendas. The public schools only have the children for a portion of each working day. The rest of the time the children are, or should be, under the supervision of their parents. If the parents truly want their children indoctrinated in ways that the public schools are not at liberty to accommodate, then the parents can involve their children in those things after school hours. As parents, they have the legal authority to do so. But they shouldn't ever expect the schools to carry the load of special interests for them.
In the service of all this, the public schools do have an obligation to ensure that arbitrary, controversial, or illegal factional pressures don't intrude on the classrooms or on the school grounds. But to accomplish this, the public schools dearly need solid insulation against having their curriculum and social environment forced into advocacy for any special interest group. If Christian Prayer, Gay Rights, and Latino Culture clubs are allowed, then what basis is there to deny the young Arians for Racial Purity, Devil Worshipers, or Black Muslims from having a peace of the action? Parents have the right to expect the schools to maintain a quality social and educational environment. Indeed, one that insulates the children from exposure to or coercion from arbitrary and controversial social influences. The kids need refuge from that sort of stuff so they can concentrate on developing the abilities of sound reasoning before legal adulthood forces them to confront and deal with all the various and sometimes competing choices in life. The crux is that the parents can't expect to have their cake and eat it too. Not everyone is going to agree about what factional interests are objectionable and which are not. In all due respect to a high degree of impartiality, the only legitimate solution is to take no prisoners and jettison all factional interests from the public school environment altogether.