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.

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.

Except some of these programs are made to teach the child what the program think is right, the child to teach that to the parent and if the parent is in disagreement to report back to school.

Yep, my child school presents the semester material they are going to cover before hand, and them presents the results of the activities (he is 4y old). I hope this keep being the standard until he grads, and that we can choose school that have a curriculum we see as important.

I have no issue acknowledging same sex family exists, but I do prefer my child learns math, economy, programming than gender policies.

1.) Well you are also discussion the notion of parents being allowed to have their children opt out of that class, and in that case the subject and its content can be relevant, and I'll explain why further below.

2.) Did you mean to say intolerant in the first sentence there? That quote is a statement made in reference to Nazi Germany.
But the principle behind it can be applied to aspects of society, laws and regulations.

One of the reasons I'm unsure about opting out, rather than just being against it, is that I do think opting out may very well not be harmful.

4.) Yeah, the analogy I gave with chemistry isn't really apples to apples. It was more the fact that even though the majority of graduates will probably never use those lessons in their life, as a society we still decided that they need to learn these things, because there's a chance they may chose a field related to it. But I think there are more effective ways to go about that, but I digress.

Since you touched on the subjectivity of what is reasonable and what isn't, I'll explain my general point, and thoughts about this.

The U.K. is a society of tolerance.
Tolerant of other people's religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

But the caveat there is that you cannot be tolerant of other people's intolerance. Towards your religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.
So anyone who goes to school there, or the workplace, etc, has to accept that. Now they can still teach their children whatever they want at home. But if they want to be part of society, there are certain things they just have to accept because society as a whole predominantly wants it that way.

However, this is just one school, so I am not convinced their decision accurately represents the society, which is why I'm unsure about this.

But as for why the school may view it as unreasonable for parents to have their children opt out, if their motivation for having their children exempt from that class is for the purpose of intolerance, then I can see why they would see that as unreasonable.

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.

Teaching tolerance and how the real world is like is indoctrination now?

I think back to my own childhood and remember that religion was a mandatory subject in school through the first eight years; two hours per week when the total hours per week were about 30. Plus the mandatory visit of the church by the whole school once per month that didn't substitute an hour of religious class, but whatever else was in that time slot; and I am sure religious class was deliberately never in that time slot for anyone.

So if I now weigh what's closer to indoctrination - is it what is being done to those kids in the UK or what I went through - those kids in the UK are so much better off. Plus they actually experience the opposite; they get freed from the indoctrination that they would face at home.

Is that true? Never heard of anything like this. Sounds like SS level stuff if that is the case.

I remember my school teaching about it 27 years ago and it left me clueless about what sex was,the one teaching it was kinda religious i think and she spoke about the subject in a really cryptic way.

Anyway, i learned about sex from the Pamela anderson and Tommy lee stolen movie that a friend showed to me.(yeah a terrible way to learn about it)

And many are not ill informed and know exactly what they are protesting about. Generalizations get us nowhere. Whether they are ill informed or not is beside the point. The fact that they are protesting what they do not agree with is a good thing. It opens up channels of communication where they can air their grievances with the people in charge (at the end of the video, it is mentioned that they have begun a dialogue with the school admin). Thus those who are ill informed can get informed and can then decide if they can stand with what the school is doing or not and ask for compromises from the school to make whatever is happening more acceptable to them. It is good because instead of staying at home and impotently raging at the system, they are trying to do something about it (if they are wrong, then the school can enlighten them during said dialogue) that does not involve violence or destruction of property (though, unfortunately, there has been threats of violence/harassment but that is to be expected with something as controversial as this).

In the end, this was a good thing (unless it escalates). I do not get why you are so against it. If you want to change ppl's minds, a dialogue is needed. And the thing about the law is that it is dependent on the will of the people and who they vote for into office. If enough ppl disagree with what the school and what the law is requiring them to do then it is a good thing that these things get to be voiced. If they are indeed the silent intolerant minority then at least they were heard and they simply practiced their rights to have their voices heard.

I do not see the negative here.

2.) Well, while this wasn't really what I was getting at, I do believe there is a strong correlation between fear, hate and violence. And unfortunately violence, or threats of violence against LGBT is not at all uncommon. In fact, in some of the countries that the protesters may originate from, being gay is punishable by death.

The 'exterminated' was certainly hyperbolic. What I meant was that if as a society you are toothless in taking acts against intolerance, then they may very well get to a point where they are unable to get back to a point where they could do something about it. Because the intolerant being in charge do not tolerate any views other than their own, it can make for the re-inclusion of those with tolerant views to be a difficult task.

4.) I do think the school is considering how intolerance of other races, genders, etc can (not too uncommonly) lead to harming others. Even hearing that someone thinks you are bad for liking someone of the same gender can have very serious consequences.
As for how this should have been communicated to the parents first, I do agree, if only because this isn't standard practice across all schools, and there may be misinformation going around, and for the parents to better understand why the school decided to do this, by for example talking about the serious harm intolerance towards children's race/gender/religion etc, can afflict.