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 should be applauded 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.
1) Irrelevant to what we already agreed on? That the parents should be able to voice their concerns? Yes, but I was never debating that in the first place, and just in case you thought so, made that clear in the last post by specifying that I agree they should be free to do so.
But it is relevant to the decision they'll eventually make. Perhaps they'll let all parents of the children attending the school vote.
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.
2) Tolerance for the intolerant eventually leads to the extermination of the tolerant.
I don't think every unreasonable notion should be entertained. And I think things like forcing people not to hang "no black people allowed" signs outside their stores for example is necessary in order to change society. People went to war over the right of owning slaves. They had to be forced to stop doing 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?
3) I'm sure they have lessons about bullying as well. But practical examples can help children associate them with things that are not unusual, or worthy of ridicule. They won't always realize how bad they're making another child feel by saying those things.
I wouldn't say this is a lesson of LGBT issues, because it is presented out of that context. Like showing a mother and father together isn't teaching them heterosexual issues. The lesson is merely that there are many different looking families, including skincolor, and very old people.
4) I'm not sure how I feel about them being able to opt out. Going back to what I said about not entertaining every idea that may be unreasonable, that is why we wouldn't generally allow children to opt out of say chemistry class, even if a considerable portion of the parents were against it due to their personal beliefs.
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.