Haha. Your formatting is a bit confusing. O_O didn't know who was quoting what and what the heck was going on. Pls disregard then and I guess I'll edit. :p

Being "morally right" does not make your rights superior to others.

The harassment, bullying and missed opportunities, etc. are the actions. In which case there is a clear act and a clear right being trampled on. In which case there is something we can target and condemn/punish said actors.

They have every right to a happy life, but I feel one should not have the right to force others to behave according to what makes one happy.

There is a clear delineation between "Your evil actions hurt and oppress me" and "I will oppress and hurt you because you have evil thoughts". 

I do not know how you got #Islamophobia from "if the shoe is on the other foot (and there is a chance of that happening), you won't like it" but if a strawman is something you feel helps you sleep at night then feel free.

You are reading too much between the lines. My motivation is what I have been arguing all along. You take it face value and try not to cherrypick sentences out of my replies so that you can strawman in an attempt to poison the well.

For the record:

1) I am NOT against LGBT tolerance being taught in schools. I have mentioned this multiple times and if you read any of replies completely you would know this. And I thought this was already perfectly clear seeing as I've repeated this more than once. What I am against is making it mandatory and for parent/students to not be given the right to opt out.

2) What I mentioned was a hypothetical (but possible) scenario. The core of the statement was simply: would you like it  IF (<-- see? hypothetical) things were on the other foot? You would know this if you read my replies instead of trying to cherrypick and snipe at them. At no point did I imply that ultraconservative Muslims had a master plan to replace the current majority. It is, however, possible that the protesting parents (who I believe are not ultranconservative) may very well become a solid demographic given immigration and birth rates and (again) IF (<--- hypothetical) they were to impose THEIR values, some ppl wouldn't like it. The point of the statement is a call to self-reflection on whether or not one believes that one's current voting majority gives one the right to impose/force one's societal values at the expense of a minority's culture (regardless of how right it is to us) and how one would feel if the reverse was true. There, I have made my motivation as clear via as many redundant explanations as possible. I hope that clears things up and I accept your apology.

This is not about "preparation" or "giving in" this is about fair and equal treatment and the rights of a parent on raising their kids, the importance of separating thoughts from actions when we decide to condemn and the right of said parent to have their voice be heard. I am NOT implying any kind "Islamic oppression" now or in the future.

Islamophobia isn't a fear like you said. Period. It's hate and prejudice against Islamic people or any political beliefs related to them (this include sociopolitical beliefs like those surrounding gay rights). And the criticism can be construed as coming from a political opposition, since gay rights is definitely a socially political position in the modern world. Condemning Muslims for their stance on this can be construed as Islamophobic since their position comes from Islam itself.

What is seen by society as "objectively" benign now can be seen as "objectively" bad tomorrow. "Objectively bad" is more subjective than you think. IF (hypothetical) the current majority feels that the lack of religion in schools is the cause of the moral decay in society and starts imposing that religion be taught in school, I'm sure many would protest such actions. Or if the lack of love for one's nation is suddenly seen as the cause of seditious disruptions (via anarchism) or just plain lack of discipline and laziness within society and schools decide to make the national anthem, ROTC and military service mandatory (this is already done in many countries) before one can graduate, wouldn't some people want to protest that? At the end of the day, there are plenty of "objectively good" things that I won't agree with. I reserve the right to protest against those. And these parents are doing just that (I condemn those that use acts/threats of violence however). They have every right to. And them using their right to protest to be heard is not a bad thing.

I am a strong advocate of: one's rights end when another one's begins. MY rights of a parents end when your rights as a person gets trampled on. Opting out of vaccines can be directly linked to measles outbreaks that can kill many other children. I have no right to impose my beliefs at the risk of the lives/health of children (others and my own). Opting out of lessons does not have a direct causal link to direct harm inflicted on others. Islamophobia/homophobia/X-phobia is a thought crime, but for as long as they do not act on it at the cost of another's rights, it is benign.

All this talk of proposals and preparedness did give me an idea: Parents who opt out of LGBT sensitivity lessons should be made to choose between that or anti-bullying, anti-prejudice lessons (that makes no mention of sexual orientation/gender). That would address the objectively direct harm-causing actions while not trampling on their culture and giving them a choice.

1) Sorry, can you elaborate a little bit further? I don't understand what you said there.

2) No I'm not ok with giving up all rights parents have because I'm arguing for the status quo. You're the one who is advocating for parents rights they don't have currently and frankly should not have.
Parents can teach their kids what ever the hell they want but society decides what should be teached in school. Parents can participate in this process the same way everyone else does, through elections and protest(as in this case) but they don't deserve an extra saying because in the end everyone has to live together with their children, not only the parents.

3) Who do you think decides what's in the curriculum, who decides what teachers learn in university, who hires teachers and decides which teacher get a promotion? A lot comes back to politicians and those are elected by the people. And yes if in 10 years the majority is unhappy with the education system, it will get changed. The current education system came to be in exactly the same way. This is also one off the many resons why we have to prevent extream parties from ever taking power. Btw how will you even enforce a education system a majority of people disagrees with? That's only possible in a dictatorship.

4) Well I'm not from UK but back when I was in school, it was only possible to opt out of religion class and if you did that you had to go to ethics class.

Ahhh, now I understand.  Because my perspective is different from yours it must be wrong.  I guess we need not continue this conversation since you already made up your mind. To be honest I was never trying to change it but neither did I make a judgement that your perspective was wrong, just different.  If you want to go that route then that's fine but its very clear we grew up very different and have very different experiences.

There are a hundred cultures that have strong historical, social and political underpinnings we do not teach to 5 year olds or anywhere for that matter.  It means a lot to you that it be taught but that's because you are part of that group.  I am sure there are a number of groups that feel the same way but they get no special treatment nor should they and neither does the LGBT community.  It doesn't have to be forced just like any other subject and should be something any child can choose because they want to know.  

My stance is pretty much that this should be something taught either middle or high school and could easily be part of an elective.  I personally would not care if it's taught part of social studies if there are some pretty historic significant that impacts history in general.  What I do believe is that at age 5 with just that book, it leaves a lot of questions and just because you believe the answers will be given within your head isn't reality as the answers will be all over the place and there is a huge community where the answers will be very negative and enforced through the child development.

1) I was clarifying why my question was relevant to the discussion. Although, I see the confusion. I meant homophobia not Islamophobia. I've got discussions with more than 1 person so I got the words mixed up. :p Sorry bout that.

2) Who said they deserved an extra say? I've already stated many times in various replies to many ppl that my position has always been that the parents are well within their rights to protest and attempt to open a dialogue with the educators. Nothing more. Essentially, they deserve to be heard. Not have an extra say. The discussion kinda went on a tangent because people condemned them simply because of their motivation and I was simply reiterating that we need to understand where they are coming from and that I would exercise my own rights the same way if there was something being forced onto my kids that I disagreed with.

3) You do not honestly believe that staffing in schools are accurately reflective of the consensus within society? Educators and school admin decide the curriculum and profs teach educators in uni. I feel that the direction of your logic is pretty strange. Schools are institutions and while politicians (school superintendent I would think, correct me if I am wrong) have influence they do not do the actual staffing/curriculum decisions/teaching/etc. Bottom line, the ones who make up the school determine the political leanings of the school.

You cannot really tell what is extreme and what is not these days. There was a time when Socialism in the US was highly hated and seen as extreme/fringe but nowadays the Socialism movement gets a lot of traction.

4) I proposed an alternative to LGBT classes in case parents/students choose to opt out. It should be similar to ethics/anti-bullying/inclusiveness/anti-discrimination w/c is taught in a general sense and not specifically LGBT related.

Positive there is zero evidence.
But go ahead, try and prove me wrong... After thousands of years, if you can present the necessary empirical evidence you will likely win a Nobel prize. - I'm not joking either.

No. I haven't missed your point, I discarded it in it's entirety.

Religion isn't required to have morals, couldn't be any simpler than that.
There are half a billion Atheists in the world, if not more. - Unless you are asserting that they are all immoral?

And we have already established that the Bible, Quran and Torah are full of immoral acts anyway.

No. That is simply your belief, not the real world, nor mine.

False. I am not obligated to provide evidence as I am not asserting that a deity of some description exists.

As for where you are putting words in my mouth... And I quote: "You save peoples lives, and? what do you gain from that? only feeling good about yourself because you believe in the illusion (from an atheistic view) called absolute morals, and either if you save lives or kill people your destiny is the same: void, sooner or later. there's no point in risking your own and only life to save others lives, this is absurd."

In short, you don't know me, so stop pretending you do.

In regards to that Link, it really doesn't go in-depth into anything or has any verifiable citations.

These also seem to contradict that link:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/genetics-dna-homosexuality-gay-orientation-attractiveness-straight
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.long
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/863841tx

I don't see all religions as being the same. But I hold them all to the same standard.

Yes the Quran is ambiguous. - Keep in mind that the original texts of the Quran was not written in English, many Arabic phrases have multiple meanings which can be reinterpreted to fit any narrative that forwards their position or argument... We need to frame the text in a context that is befitting of someone who lived 6,000 years ago and the knowledge they possessed.

Not only that but the Quran is derived from the same historical context that the Bibles Old Testament was built from... Which in turn predates the Quran by several centuries... Which was also derived from the Hebrew Bible and thus was also translated and reinterpreted many times, thus meanings changed to "fit in" with the scientific principles over the course of a few thousand years.

Yes Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory.
In case you aren't aware a scientific theory is a collection of facts with working models to explain a position.

Evolution falls into that category, at this point the evidence for Evolution is simply indisputable, if you disagree with Evolution then you are a science denier, simple as that... The same scientific principles that gives the explanation of Evolution is what got us to the moon, gives us modern medicines that cures disease and pretty much gave us all the modern comforts we enjoy today.

Not all your arguments are worth my time responding to. Nor am I obligated to either.

Facts are... Everyone is born Atheist, it is the default position... It's only later that they are indoctrinated into various religions/cults/organizations/groups.

I do actually agree.
But you still need to call it out.

Well. It could also be argued that those who have been repressed, mistreated, bashed, murdered, discriminated against are owed something by society in the short term with true societal equality coming later.
If it's something like educating the next generation on LGBT issues, then that is a small price to pay... That isn't forcing ones beliefs down someones throats, it's ensuring that past transgressions don't occur in the future.

I do have a Pro-LGBT bias on this topic though for obvious reasons though.