Our right to our identity

Today's news says that public schools in New South Wales are to stop using the terms 'husband', 'wife', 'Mum and Dad', and others which are gender specific because, it is suggested, they exclude homosexuals by implying that relationships must be between a female and a male. This has been coming for a while; an Orwellian regime of "Nuspeak", meant to build political correctness into people's thinking and speech idioms. I believe that it should be resisted. It compromises the right to freedom of expression and imposes petty bureaucratic censorship on conversation. And a Church affiliated boys' school in this state was asked by some of its students for permission to take 'gay' partners to the school's senior farewell, instead of female ones. Accepting the existence of homosexuality does not mean we have to deny the existence of heterosexuality. Many, indeed most relationships ARE between a male and a female. It is not homophobic to treat that as a norm which can be recognized. Homosexuals, like any other group, do NOT have the right to demand that everything show deference to them. The rest of us can see it our way.
The same goes for legislating that Christian schools may not discriminate against homosexual staff, by refusing to hire them. This was explained well by one writer who put it this way: the homosexual can remain homosexual without working in a Christian school. A Christian school cannot retain its Christian stance if it is forced to hire an open homosexual, and that teacher's open homosexuality is in contravention of the Christian teaching. If you don't agree, don't associate with churches and their schools! They are entitled to act on belief. The same could actually be said for a teacher known to be living in any way which clearly violates their posititon as a Christian exemplar. Some time ago a Catholic school did sack a teacher for living de facto instead of being legally married. The cry went up, discrimination, violating rights, etc, but the school's position was: live according to Christian teaching and doctrine if you expect to be employed by the Church in an official capacity. The woman does not have to work in a Christian school to live as she does. The school cannot ratify a breach of Christian example by its staff and yet remain a Catholic school.
It's been said before: accepting that something is legal is not the same as having to personally approve of it. And minorities should not be allowed to tyranise, yes I use that word deliberately, by claiming censorship over the speech of others. Free speech means that one person can say something another bitterly disagrees with, and that other admits their right to say it; but they do not have to give way and not state their own opinion in turn.