A Compelling Reason to Home School

Is it necessary to categorize and teach about our historical figures according to their sexual orientation? Apparently, Senator Mark Leno in California thinks so. He's trying to pass a bill that would REQUIRE California schools to teach "LGBT history." The bill would also prevent schools from teaching anything that "reflects negatively" on LGBT Americans. I agree that we shouldn't exclude legitimately important historical figures from our kids' education just because they're gay, but why do we have to address the fact that they were gay at all? Why is that relevant? I don't know George Washington's dietary preferences, or whether he was a good horseman, or whether he liked brunettes...those things have nothing to do with his contribution to our nation or our history. If he had been gay, and I were taught that as a 10-year-old, would I have become more "tolerant" of homosexuality (which is one of the supposed goals of this bill)? Another of Senator Leno's goals is to teach kids that it's OK to be themselves. Is it really? What does that even mean? It's OK to do whatever you want to do, because that's just expressing your unique and treasured you-ness? I can't imagine anything more antithetical to what I'm trying to accomplish here at home with my kids. What's scary is that I think, at the root of it, my purpose is similar to Senator Leno's (his stated purpose, anyway) - we want to raise a generation of kids to be good people and good citizens. We just define "good" in totally, utterly, mystifyingly different ways.