Lol, if you believe just saying people love each other and leave it at that then you have no experience in this area.  That's the simplistic logic people state when they have not had this conversation multiple times.  Once a child curiosity is engaged within a subject they will constantly talk about it.  They will bring the subject up multiple times and during the oddest of places and events.  If you have the talk about how children are brought into the world then you have to talk about Dad and Dad.  There is no tactful way around these questions because you need to be honest with the child not sugar coat it with BS.

Some parents are prepared for these questions some are not.  I have had multiple conversations along these lines and each time the questions get deeper and deeper.  If you believe you can just leave out the gritty details then you are leaving those gritty details to be filled in by someone else.  Children will constantly talk about the subject among themselves and either get some distorted view from another child or be the one giving it.  

So I will say again, this book doesn't do enough and it leaves gaps that need to be filled in by either parents or someone else.  What it will not do is bring any more education to the subject for a 5 year old besides a lot of questions.

The subject and what it contains is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that sometimes some people won't agree with what is being taught to their kids and they should have the option to either converse with the educators (to create some sort of compromise) or to opt out. You do not create change by forcing something people don't want to swallow down their throats you do it thru cooperation, compromise, mutual respect and mutual understanding. The fact the parents appear willing to speak to the school regarding the matter and only expressed their disagreement thru protest (again, excluding those who sent threats of violence here) should be applauded not condemned. They have every right to protest.

Then that would accomplish the opposite of what should be ideal (w/c is tolerance, respect and kindness towards the LGBT community). One needs to think about best course of action and how to best accomplish it. Again, you do not create change by forcing an idea down those who do not wish to accept it.

Then bullying should have been the lesson that should have been taught at that age, not LGBT issues.

I feel like the subject should stay, but the parents should be allowed to opt out. Maybe when they notice that it is not having a detrimental effect on other kids, they may change their mind on the matter?

This actually have a bigger issue than religion.  Right now people are getting focused that it's Muslims but what if they were not Muslims but just parents who want more of a say in what is taught to their children at a certain age.  The fact that this was not communicated first to the community is a bigger issue I see then the protest.  As a parent I definitely do want a say in what my child learns in the school they attend.  My wife and I just went through this with the current school we registered our 2 kids in.  We looked over the curriculum so we understood what is being taught and how they are being taught before making a decision on the school they will attend.  Having that ability makes a world of difference then just taking what is taught and being complacent.

Not much to elaborate upon.

Bradford has a large Muslim population and it's not really surprising to see the Muslim community band together to protest against something they disagree with. They're good at it, it's quite admirable. That this is happening in Birmingham, a City very similar to Bradford demographic-wise, doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

1) Irrelevant meaning that it is not what I am discussing. I agree about the subject existing, but also agree that parents should be allowed to voice their concerns as long as they do it peacefully and are willing to have a conversation about it to correct misunderstandings. You mentioned that the subject is mostly benign and I agree. But the content being reasonable and benign is irrelevant here as not everyone in the world share the same opinion about anything (what is reasonable to you and me may not be reasonable to other people). But I feel we already agree on the general concept, just not the details on it.

2) Only if the tolerant is known to be violent. The thing is, you do not convince the intolerant to be tolerant by fighting them, you do it by slowly teaching them (them, not their kids). And reasonable compromises can be reached when dialogue is allowed. Wouldn't simply allowing them to opt out be very reasonable. After all, I don't think they are demanding that the school teach anti-LGBT subjects and the school can simply reject calls to have the subject removed entirely. But  I don't see the hard in simply allowing their kids to opt out when they have zero choices in where to send their kids to school.

3) Well then, that should be enough, shouldn't it? And if bullying can't be prevented thru the methods being taught by the school, then I feel that LGBT tolerance might be even less effective.

Again, you might feel that what is being taught is mostly benign. But not everyone agrees with you.

4) There is an element of subjectivity when we think about reasonable-unreasonable here. I do not see this as unreasonable, for example. There is a difference between a science that teaches them a skill they would likely need in the future to get a career versus a subject that has ideological baggage attached to it. Like I said, if the school starts pushing fossil fuel into its subjects I feel like I should have the right to opt out.

With this statement are you not just saying that as long as you feel its ok, then others should not have the option to opt out.  If the subject change and to something you do not agree with would you be just as accepting not having the option to opt out. I believe the bigger point is that schools should be more proactive in letting parents know what is being taught to their children so discourse can happen before this escalate to this point.  If the parents do not attend the PTA meetings or what not to learn of these new things then its on them but for the parents that attend these meetings and others, having new material like this brought up early and giving a chance to discuss the pros and cons shows respect for the parents and the community not just lording this down and expecting everyone to accept it without question.

You are correct in assuming that I don't have children. My best reference point is my own childhood. But when your children were very young and asking you about your relationship with your partner, did you fill them in on all the details of the sexual part of your relationship? I'd be incredibly surprised if you did. First I knew about it was the birds and the bees conversation, when I was 10.

My point being you can still talk to children about relationships without involving sex. And as you say, leave the sexual stuff until they are older.

And is even less of a plaything for teachers, government or any other group besides the parents.

Letting child discover things on their own very much contradicts putting the subject in school to force them to discover it instead of it happening by chance.

The very excuse of making they more tolerant to diversity shows that it isn't something about letting discover, but to force a thought process. 

When my 21 year old son was young about the age of 5 years of old we needed to have this conversation because of 2 boys who were more than a little friendly with him during child care.  We had to talk about why they liked him the way they did and how that differ from the relationship his mom and I share.  Yes we did have to get into the weeds because as I have experienced, when you leave a conversation on these topic with gaps, someone else will fill that gap in for your child.

While you can have a conversation without bringing up sex, you would be only doing half the story to be filled in by someone else or another child. For some here they believe just because the kid stop asking you question their curiosity just left but instead they decided you could not answer their question and wen elsewhere.

If you only give a child half the story, then you leave a gap in their knowledge you did not fill and thus someone else will.  More than likely someone will give them misinformation.  Most of the time it will be another child who barely knows what they are talking about.  You would be very surprised at how much information a child soaks up at age 5 and how much misinformation they pick up from other children.  Just riding my child to school during those days was an event listening to them talk about different subjects.  Even now, my 10 and 12 year old talk about stuff they are totally clueless about and you wonder where they get this stuff from.

As for my 10 and 12 year old, I did hold off on such talks until both were around 9 years old but that's because after speaking with them on a number of occasions, I found that others were filling in gaps on the subject and most of it was garbage.  I still feel at age 15 was when my older child really had an understanding of what we talked about because then he actually have more first hand experience.