The government is certainly smarter than the average parent. Because they're backed by science while parents are backed by anti-vax facebook groups.

Bold assertion. Do you have any evidence to backup said claim that I lack experience?

Well lets put it this way, from my experience just telling a child someone loves each other isn't the end of the discussion as you stated.  That is only the beginning and from there you have to define exactly what love is.  Is it love between 2 friends, a family member like sister and brother or the love between a mom and dad.  You made the statement that all you need to say they love each other and that's it, the child is satisfied with the answer and never want the details or the context.

What you are promoting is the slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy, that means we can discard your argument.

The fact of the matter is.. For decades parents have used me as an example to teach their children about Gays and Lesbians... Because... Well... Who is more qualified than someone who is Gay and lives it?

Fact of the matter is, when parents have told their children that I am a gay man, it hasn't escalated from there. - Sometimes there are some questions, but you don't need to get into the nitty-gritty details... You just say "That is how they are". - If you won't get into the nitty gritty details when explaining heterosexual relationship dynamics, why would you with a homosexual one?

Not sure what you mean.  I am stating you cannot leave out context or just leave gaps in the subject hoping the the child will not come back for more answers or for that matter not come back at all but get their info from somewhere else.  There is no slippery slope in my argument because I am stating that once you open up a topic you have to be prepared to talk about everything, not just the parts you feel you can handle.  Its great that you are a person some parents can come to to open up the subject but are you the person they come back to to fill in the gaps.  Do you believe that just saying we love each other the child will not seek context to what that means.  At the end of the day, most parents do not have you for context in these talks but instead rely on their own experience and what they either know or think they know or how they feel about the subject.  Its a subject that will constantly come back as the child gets more info on the topic.

Parents should take some responsibility in raising their children anyway.

And this makes a hell of a difference to the education of children and LGBT issues, I have seen how society has changed in regards to these issues over the decades and things have certainly improved for the better at all levels.

Raising their children in what way because as a parent, you deal with a thousand things you need to do to raise your child.  What exactly does that mean.  What this does is at this early age is force a conversation on the topic earlier then I believe the LGBT community would want.  Instead of teaching a child early about different relationships it brings up the conversation so bias can be introduced at an early age and enforced before the child has a chance to develop their own opinions.  

The majority of parents would never even have such conversations with their kids and for most they would see nothing wrong or different if they see Dad and Dad or Mom and Mom because there is no bias within a child so young.  What this does is now the child will look for context to what is taught in school and they will ask their parents to fill the gap.  If you are ok that the happy path will not always be the result then so be it but I do not believe this closes the gap.  I believe this opens the door for bias and indoctrination during the very early development stage of a child and will not accomplish the learning you wish for but instead give parents who do not look favorable towards the LGBT community to instill their bias to the child.

Sorry, but considering private companies are much better managed than government ones I would say individual people are more qualified than government

No offense, but there is a big difference between the Brazilian government and the British government, or most other western European governments. The British government is fucking stupid lately with how they handle the Brexit (or don't handle, more like), but at least they're not totally corrupt like Brazil, sadly.

What is the relevance of this argument? The point of contention was that the educational programs of the government (i.e. public schools) are much more competent than what the average parents can provide. Which is true, so the big question is why you take issue with that.

You don't have to apologize for you didn't burst anything.

I have two kids, my wife is a pre-K teacher and we both have Early Childhood Education degrees. Where do you think children learn their prejudices from?  Hate against gay people is not an innate emotion for a 5 year old.

Well lets put it this way, from my experience just telling a child someone loves each other isn't the end of the discussion as you stated.  That is only the beginning and from there you have to define exactly what love is.  Is it love between 2 friends, a family member like sister and brother or the love between a mom and dad.  You made the statement that all you need to say they love each other and that's it, the child is satisfied with the answer and never want the details or the context.

Not sure what you mean.  I am stating you cannot leave out context or just leave gaps in the subject hoping the the child will not come back for more answers or for that matter not come back at all but get their info from somewhere else.  There is no slippery slope in my argument because I am stating that once you open up a topic you have to be prepared to talk about everything, not just the parts you feel you can handle.  Its great that you are a person some parents can come to to open up the subject but are you the person they come back to to fill in the gaps.  Do you believe that just saying we love each other the child will not seek context to what that means.  At the end of the day, most parents do not have you for context in these talks but instead rely on their own experience and what they either know or think they know or how they feel about the subject.  Its a subject that will constantly come back as the child gets more info on the topic.

Raising their children in what way because as a parent, you deal with a thousand things you need to do to raise your child.  What exactly does that mean.  What this does is at this early age is force a conversation on the topic earlier then I believe the LGBT community would want.  Instead of teaching a child early about different relationships it brings up the conversation so bias can be introduced at an early age and enforced before the child has a chance to develop their own opinions.  

The majority of parents would never even have such conversations with their kids and for most they would see nothing wrong or different if they see Dad and Dad or Mom and Mom because there is no bias within a child so young.  What this does is now the child will look for context to what is taught in school and they will ask their parents to fill the gap.  If you are ok that the happy path will not always be the result then so be it but I do not believe this closes the gap.  I believe this opens the door for bias and indoctrination during the very early development stage of a child and will not accomplish the learning you wish for but instead give parents who do not look favorable towards the LGBT community to instill their bias to the child.

Well I would say where we would disagree is that I think school is to teach, family is to educate (and from what you have said in other thread I think, and I may be wrong but perhaps your family failed you on this). So respecting people, LGBT included, is part of family obligation and if a family wants to teach biggotry that unfortunatelly is their right.

Because in the end the power you give to the government is the power you lose yourself. In this situation they are doing something that most people would say is the right thing, but they could very well be doing just the opposite (as happened in the past with government persecuting people based on who they were). And one thing that is very hard to do is take away power from the government, so once it grows to a size it almost never reduce back.

And sure I agree with you that it will be great when it is a time where we don't need to teach anyone to respect the basic rights of LGBT people, including the right to marry and to be a blood donor if they so wish and won't harm another person (same standard a hetero person would be held) among others.

You are an Adult... Make it the end of a discussion. Children don't get to control or dictate terms to you.

You are delving into slippery slope arguments, which is a logical fallacy, you need to recognize that and recognize that your line of thinking is highly erroneous due to that very fact.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slopehttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

The fact of the matter is... Whenever someone has used me as an example of teaching their children about Homosexuality, they left it as "They love each other". - The kids were satisfied with that answer.

If you think that talking about two adults showing love and affection to children is suddenly going to turn into a discussion about how individuals fuck each other.. Then you are probably going about it the wrong way, kids don't need to know details like how I went and had sex with 7 different guys at a gay sauna with my partner last weekend... But telling them I love my partner as I hug him after dealing with casualties at a car accident is all that is needed.

It is literally no different talking to a child about how their mum and dad loves each other, there is no further discussion that delves into questionable aspects like you so eloquently describe, it just doesn't happen... It's baseless fear mongering.

If the parents don't have appropriate experience, information or context like you say... Then that just places a larger emphasis on the need of teaching kids about LGBTQI issues in the curriculum does it not? You said it yourself that parents are failing in this area.

LGBT people are here to stay, they are in the community. Kids are going to see two men holding hands, showing affection and ask questions... Telling a child that it's because those two people love each other isn't the end of the world.

Kids understand the concept of love, apparently than allot of Adults... It's not some dirty, unthinkable topic that should be avoided, LGBT people are part of the real world, they have always existed, will always exist and it's time that some people embraced that very fact and got over it.

As for indoctrination... I think you should be a little more concerned about religion on that front than education on LGBT issues/culture. I mean.. Shit.

I think school is there to teach and educate... Same with family. Children should be taught from all angles in life not just specific avenues.

My family is a basket of cats that I really won't get into...

I guess things are different here government wise where such things aren't an issue.

It isn't really a slide slope.

Kids are curious and they will keep asking, and if you just stop answering or shut the conversation they'll get information otherwise, that is the point the guy made and it is totally right. The fact that you wouldn't answer or that the parents didn't ask don't mean the kids weren't curious or that they didn't learn in a different way.

On the government. Good that it isn't so bad over there, but anywhere in the world more power to the government is less to the people.

It is a slippery slope logical fallacy.
If someone claims one thing... And then suddenly the argument expands and runs away from that claim... It's a slippery slope argument... Which is exactly what is occurring.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slopehttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I am claiming that you can keep the response simple and tactful... And the slippery slope is where it will spiral out of control due to a childs curiosity, you cannot get a better example of a slippery slope argument than that.

Whether the kids are curious or not is ultimately irrelevant though, Kids will be curious about sexual intercourse regardless if the people are Homosexual or not... But suddenly because we are talking about LGBTQI people it's somehow significantly worse? I don't get it, double standards.

In Europe governments are elected by the people, so the government has accountability towards the people. If any government tried anything stupid in the educational system, a lot of people would be up in arms and the power of the governing political parties would be threatened, because they can expect to lose a large amount of votes and therefore their power, if they don't apply consideration to the situation.

One reason why you are so against this idea might be that you live in Brazil where the system doesn't work as well as in Europe. Another reason could be - based on what other people have pointed out about you in different threads - that you have a racist mindset, so schools teaching tolerance is something that conflicts with your view of the world.

1). I'm sorry.  I'm trying to follow your question but I can't.  Did you miss a word?  Or can you re-word it?  I don't want to make a reply that might be about something you weren't saying and then we're both confused.

2). Uh, no.  Prejudice is taught.  Again, My wife teaches Pre-K and we both have degrees in it.  We see it every single day. Look up any research article. study or white paper by child psychologists on learned prejudice. Very little regarding social constructs is innate and none of it is factored by confusion or fear.

3). Mocking isn't generally innate.  Mocking of the social rejected is learned.  Kids will mock others not simply because they are different but because their difference is projected by others as a negative. 

If 5 years are shown that people of different cultures, races, sexes, classes, religions, orientations, etc....are accepted....they will accept them.  It is when those they model behavior and worldview after do not accept them that they develop prejudices.