Because the mother is providing materials to her child to promote a lifestyle that, at least according to the article, is contrary to the six year olds nature. If homosexuality was nature/biology then it would not have to be learned, it would happen (so we've been told repeatedly) - particularly in an environment where its commonplace. This is attempted indoctrination, nothing more.

This story has been posted here because its the same old argument of learned vs natural behavior. Personally, natural proclivities should determine one sexuality, and a great many other things in the individual life, and not the emphasis on a someone else's idea of happy, normal or abnormal. This is as wrong as homosexuals complaining that heterosexual parents are trying to force homosexual children against their "nature".

Mother wants her child to be similar to her. What parent doesn't? Either the kid will be gay or she won't. What the parent wishes will have no bearing on the outcome. Don't see why this is even a story.

You're both working off the old meaning of the word and not the usurped current meaning. For a parent to instruct their child to be homosexual is morally wrong. Not because homosexuality is morally wrong, but because they are deliberately placing their demand for their choice of lifestyle over the natural lifestyle the child is born to. Homosexuals can't have "made this way" and "taught this way", its either natural biology or its now.

I agree. I have two kids who I encourage to be gay by any definition they want, i.e. ignore Ellsworth Toohey when he tries to take away your dreams.

I would hope every parent would want a gay child. I'm one of the gayest guys my wife knows, and I live a life of gaiety and happiness.
But I see you your point, that is shameful.

Have a gay old time!