An example of trying to put ideas in kids' minds:
Port Washington - Parents are angry and school leaders are promising action in response to a "Heterosexual Questionnaire," approved by two teachers, that asked students questions such as: "If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?"(JsOnline)
It's probably the same way that you know not to eat your own excrement without trying it. It's a basic natural fact, although the insane sometimes forget it. If you're going to ask a question about knowledge that has to do with Natural Law and the basic distinctions and categorical discriminations that it relies on then that brings up various issues dealing with basic judgments of sane behavior, sanitation, civilization and the like. No matter how much people are conditioned to make a special case for homophilia in their moral reasoning any doors that are opened in such reasoning will apply to all sexual behaviors and all behavior. If accepted incorrectly in one area the same reasoning begins to be logically applied to more deviant things like zoophilia, pedophilia, etc. Logical reasoning based on a philosophy of hedonism was already applied by the Romantics to heterosexual promiscuity and adultery. I.e., Gays© are making use of a form of moral reasoning that is already there. In the modern template of Gay© propaganda the old moral reasoning would look like this: "Promiscuity people just have a different culture, yet they are discriminated against by current marriage law! Well, I know a person who is promiscuous and they seem nice and friendly. So yay for me and my acceptance and tolerance of promiscuity people!" Etc. Tucked away inside it is the fact that a philosophy of hedonism is being assumed and used to define groups of people as well as their sexual ethic.
It seems that after a group identity is established the relationship between Leftists and their groups can get odd, as Leftists tend to use their groupie groups of Victims to get political power for themselves. Sometimes their use of groups for power continues to the point that it seems that they do not really care about supporting their constituents as people and individuals after all. E.g., if the Democrats really believed that the absence of same-sex marriage was some sort of human rights abuse against individual people, instead of an issue to be mined for the sake of identity politics with yet another supposed collective, then their platform wouldn't be leaving the issue to the states.