The pink power play

Recently the man who is apparently responsible for everything to do with our children announced that he wanted children as young as four to be dissuaded from using terms like mum and dad and taught, if only on a rudimentary level, about homosexual relationships.
Ed Balls, whose name is an apt description of most of his intellectual output, is charged among other things with protecting, nurturing and educating the current and future generations. In a country where the literacy rates for all kids, but particulalrly white, working class boys, are falling through the floor; where exercise in schools is so pathetic that obesity is becoming endemic and where we are falling so far behind other countries in educational attainment that many companies routinely recruit foreign applicants at the expense of their Britsh counterparts, what worries our Children's minister most is that four year olds won't realise that there are alternatives to the traditional Mum & Dad family.
Why?
What is there about this subject that keeps him tossing and turning at night rather than contemplating the fact that illiteracy is now the default attainment of many young people?
The answer is that, in common with most of the current administration, he is in thrall to the homosexual lobby. Like all of the msot vociferous pressure groups in this country, the Pink lobby actually represents the views of a tiny portion of the population. Even if we believe the extremely dubious propoganda that one in ten people is homosexual, the proportion of those that are active members of groups such as Stone Wall is minute, probably fewer than 1%. So, the actual number of people pressurising Ed Balls and his pals represent probably less than 000.1% of the total population.
Why and how do they wield power that is so disproportionate to their actual numbers. Is it possible that there is some form of Pink Freemasonry operating at all levels of government? Do they hold some dirty pictures of key members of the administration, perhaps? Or is it a mixture of both?
Whatever the answer, it is astonishing that, with all of the problems assailing our society, precious Parliamentary time is going to be devoted to making it illegal for one 10-year old kid to call another kid's shoes "Gay" in a playground disagreement. If he does, apparently, it will be treated in the same way as if he had committed a racist or hate crime. And probably have more police time devoted to it than if one or the other of the little combatants had pulled a knife on his opponent.
Just in case Mr Balls doesn't understand these things, let me share a little secret with him. Being homosexual does not make someone special, separate or distinctive in the same way that ethnicity, handicap or ancestry does. Both of the latter are a matter of geneology. The former, i.e. homosexuality, is a matter of what certain people choose to do with their genitals. As simple as that.
They of course have a perfect right to exchange bodily fluids with each other in whatever private place they choose for their convenience, as long as it doesn't frighten the budgie. Beyond that, they should have no more rights or entitlement to special pleading than anyone else in our society.
If you give it to them, it won't be long before paedophiles, people who prefer oral sex, tantric sex, necrophilia, copraphilia, intercourse with animals or inanimate objects start their own lobby to be regarded as a distinctive group and we end with another typical Balls-up that benefits no one except for yet another select band of bewigged chancers - Human Rights lawyers.