Thats good,its your body and your happiness.

People that think sexual freedom is something negative might be religious,jealous,or scarred from dishonest relationships and are confused it relates to this.

I asked about should not could. Not the capability of it being done but if such a thing was possible, would you want it to be?

All what this tells me is that being gay sounds like a party for life

fatslob-:O said: Hahaha ... I guess the "diversity loving" liberals and the "intolerance hating" liberals are going are going to have to decide what values truly are or aren't 'liberal' ... Mixing freedom of speech and incompatible values between different minorities will only create tensions. Taking away freedom of speech will mean that differing minorities of incompatible social values will not be able to express 'intolerance' so I guess they don't appreciate "having diversity" after all ... Decisions, decisions, decisions ... (gotta love these contradictions)

Ding Ding Ding Ding!

I'm sorry to inform you but life is full of contradictions.

This contradiction isn't even difficult to solve, alone reading though this thread will show you that most liberal or left minded people will choose one side, hint: it is not the one who promotes ancient values.

No I don't think it should be illegal.

Big nope.

We would live in a crazy world if thoughts and feelings can be illegal.

That's good to hear.

My question had a lot to do with the reason behind the condemnation these parents seem to be suffering. 

A lot of people are condemning them behind their motivations/thoughts but not really their actions. Their actions might have homophobic roots but homophobia is something people are allowed to have unless they act on it and hurt/oppress others. Protesting over something you care about, however, is well within their rights (again, I condemn those who use threats/acts of violence).

To contrast, what they are fighting against is government being able to actively instill values they do not agree with onto their children and the loss of choice against such government acts. The ONLY time IMO that government is allowed to overrule the parents is when there is direct harm/risk on the kids themselves and others.

When compared to each other I find the latter far more distasteful than the former. Far far FAR more. Everyone should be scared about it regardless of where your politics lie.

It doesn't matter if we disagree with their values, they have the right to have it.

What value was trying to be instilled tat they disagree with? Because I think that teaching your children to be homophobic little shits is actually a direct harm to them when they have to live in a society that contains gay people. Just like teaching your child to be a racist little shit would be directly harmful to them when they have to live in a society where getting along with other races is a necessity. 

No. It is a thought crime. Until the kids acts out on said thoughts and harm others then no direct harm is done. And even then you need to prove direct causality.  And even then, you need to prove that the causality is singular (and not nuanced and broader because there could be other direct environmental factors that can be attributed to it). But thoughts and feelings (w/c is what values are) are not crimes and do not do direct harm.

Unless you have studies that prove Islam cause considerable psychological harm on children (if so, I would love to see it. And even then, the harm must be well above what normal parents already inflict on their own kids)?

Until then, you want them to accept mandatory social engineering be applied to their kids and for the parents to simply bend over, shut up and take it.

And they are NOT asking the government/school to teach their kids and others' kids to be homophobic/racist shits. They are asking that they be given a CHOICE on when and if THEIR kids are taught values they disagree with. We need to not be overly dramatic/emotional in how we look at things and be purely objective here. <--- there is nothing wrong with this, despite us disagreeing with their possible motives.

Where is the tolerance here? Why is giving them choice suddenly such a negative? Why is choice so important when it comes to killing unborn kids but suddenly so unimportant when it comes to actually doing your best to raise these kids according to your values (<--not directed at you)?

Well then we have a disagreement in terms. I think that teaching your children values that make it harder for them to live in society as it is is harmful to not just them but the society in which they live. Both of these are concerns the government and society at large can and should have. 

So again I'm curious, what exactly was the school teaching that the parents took issue with and why? 

Your logic is very slippery-slope-fallacy-ish and very subjective as well as highly overdramaticizing what the parents are trying to do here. Society doesn't get to decide how a person thinks. And they can only control what one does for as long as it is directly harmful to others.

At no point did they ask the school to teach homophobic-shittiness to the kids.

Well, whether or not we agree on the content of the lessons (personally, I disagree with the parents and find the lesson to be harmless. But that is not the point), the parents themselves don't want it taught to their kids, they should be allowed to opt out.