>
I'm undecided. He might be extremely smart (duh) but his physical ability will still be that of a peer so why can't he experience peers through sports ? Similar interests (because he's a child and should still be shielded from inappropriate stuff). 
Keeping him in a grade level below his ability will probably make him turn out to just quit. >

The ideas might work in theory, but in practice, absolutely not. Do you seriously think that a kid like that is going to be able to relate to or be comfortable around people their own age? There's a reason why extremely smart people have the tendency to be socially inept when interacting with the average person, and why they tend to be loners.
Also, it would be way more than just 'bored in class' if you kept the kid from advancing more than a few years past their peers. You evidently have no idea how painful it is when the work everyone is doing is well below your skill level and they're learning things you learned years ago. It ends up being counterproductive because the work is so dull that it can't keep your attention, and then you end up getting worse marks because you aren't learning anything, so there's not enough of a reason to pay attention. >

With his exceptional intelligence, how would he relate to peers his own age?  I think he could be surrounded by children his own age and near his intelligence level so that he can relate more, and yes he's missing a part of his childhood that alot of people have.  Then it's our judgement that having a "normal" childhood is healthy.  Then by logic we are telling him he is unhealthy.