By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Muslim parents in UK protest school children's storybook featuring same gender parents

Hiku said:

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.
But I do think they should sit down and discuss it.

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.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
SecondWar said:

At the age of 5 the vast majority of children do not a have a concept of sex, so you don't need to start telling them how same sex couples do it. They know about pregnancy but not how it is caused. So yes, you can get away without filling in the blanks. Also at 15 there are a fair number of kids who have already questioned their sexuality for several years, so you will be leaving it too late.

So how do you tell a kid, why a family have 2 dads.  How do you get into that conversation and not talk about the relationship especially if your child has witness your relationship between you and your wife.  You make this statement as if you do not have children but I have actual personal experience with this subject. You cannot just say they live together it will not be enough to satisfy a child curiosity.  Do you believe the conversation just ends there but it doesn't.  The child will repeatedly come back with more questions and each time they will be more detailed and more involved.  If you do not provide this information then someone else will and their bias will be the formation of their development from there on.  Once you open the pandora box it doesn't close until the child is curiosity dissipate.  You will be very surprised how much a information a child picks up by age 5 and how much concept they understand.

At age 15 is when they can have real discussions about their feelings or even how they feel about same sex relationships.  This is when they become at a maturity level where they start to really form their world view.  I am not talking about a child who is  homosexual or identify as homesexual at a young age. Nothing within the schools will help them work out their issues, as it will be something within the home to help them on their course.  If their family is supportive then things are much easier but if not then nothing within the schools will help the situation.  What I am talking about is giving information to young adults at a stage they can really chew on it and hopefully beat down their parents bias and form their own opinion.

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.

Last edited by SecondWar - on 03 June 2019

vivster said:
DrDoomz said:

For me, this is not about gender/LGBT issues. This is about parents having a say at what they don't want taught to their kids. It can seem ignorant/backwards to many of us but we need to sympathize with their plight. They do not agree with what the school is teaching and at what age this is being taught and they do not have a choice on where to send their kids. Not only do they have to pay for this (via taxes), now they are forced to have their kids attend it, as well? I don't agree with their beliefs but as a parent, I have to sympathize with their situation. Because if there will come a time when certain beliefs are forced onto my kids at that age that I don't agree with, I will also be doing exactly what they are doing.

If religion is kept out of schools, then why force this in? Schols (at this early an age) should be neutral in both religion and politics, I feel. Schools should make these non-mandatory and parents should be allowed to have their kids opt out (unless they already are?).

Personally, I've taught my 5 year old daughter about LGBTQ issues (not in depth, just that love doesn't have to be about man/woman. But I have taught them that such instances are not the norm). My wife is a card carrying liberal feminist that I have deep respect for so I don't see the harm in letting my child know the truth about the world. But that's beside the point.

Child protective services exist, laws exist, children with once thought eradicated illnesses exist. Why? Because parents are terrible at their fucking jobs. Raising a child stops being their job when it's about a future member of society that will interact with other members of society. A child isn't a plaything for the parents. If a child was truly the property of their parents then post natal abortion would be legal, but it isn't.

So I thoroughly reject the notion that people can't tell parents how to raise their child. I mean the whole reason school even exists is because parents cannot educate them themselves.

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



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Hiku said:
DrDoomz said:

That's not my point, though. My point is that at least they voiced their concerns via an acceptable medium (the ones that did not resort to threats of violence anyway) that opens dialogue and compromise between both sides.

We might not agree with them but they are doing the right thing relative to their beliefs (w/c we don't agree with). The alternative is for them to seethe and impotently rage at the system until a breaking point is reached or overcompensate by doubly over-stressing their beliefs at home (to the detriment of the kids) and we all can agree that nothing good comes from that.

As a parent, I get why they feel strongly about being able to raise their kids in accordance to their values. They are not values I necessarily agree with but the level of urgency to at least have some control over the values being imparted to my kids is a very strong paternal need. IF schools decided to teach my child about the benefits of fossil fuel (a fairly benign topic as well), then I will be there protesting as well regardless of what the law says.

Yeah, I agree that they should be able to voice their opinions. (Maybe screaming in megaphones next to 5 year olds isn't the best approach though.)

But I also think that the idea of letting your children make up their own minds about things (as much as possible at least) is important, and should be to everyone. Just exposing them to the facts first, that things exist, is an important first step.
But even for the parents who just want their kids to believe what they do, they'll still get the first chance to indoctrinate their beliefs unto their children. None of them are denying that same gender couples exist or that they love their children. (I assume...)

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. 



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

SecondWar said:
Machiavellian said:

So how do you tell a kid, why a family have 2 dads.  How do you get into that conversation and not talk about the relationship especially if your child has witness your relationship between you and your wife.  You make this statement as if you do not have children but I have actual personal experience with this subject. You cannot just say they live together it will not be enough to satisfy a child curiosity.  Do you believe the conversation just ends there but it doesn't.  The child will repeatedly come back with more questions and each time they will be more detailed and more involved.  If you do not provide this information then someone else will and their bias will be the formation of their development from there on.  Once you open the pandora box it doesn't close until the child is curiosity dissipate.  You will be very surprised how much a information a child picks up by age 5 and how much concept they understand.

At age 15 is when they can have real discussions about their feelings or even how they feel about same sex relationships.  This is when they become at a maturity level where they start to really form their world view.  I am not talking about a child who is  homosexual or identify as homesexual at a young age. Nothing within the schools will help them work out their issues, as it will be something within the home to help them on their course.  If their family is supportive then things are much easier but if not then nothing within the schools will help the situation.  What I am talking about is giving information to young adults at a stage they can really chew on it and hopefully beat down their parents bias and form their own opinion.

You are correct I 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.

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.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
CosmicSex said:
This is why people don't want religion in school. It doesn't belong there.
If you want your kid to only see what you wish, take them out of the school and teach them yourself.
You don't get to tell everyone else what their kids can't and can't see.
You just don't have the right to and I am blown away that people can't see that.

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.

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DrDoomz said:
Hiku said:

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.

DrDoomz said:
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.

DrDoomz said:
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.

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
DrDoomz said:

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.

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



DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

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.

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.

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)



DrDoomz said:

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.

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, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

But the caveat there is that you cannot be tolerant of other people's intolerance. Towards other people's religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.
So anyone who goes to school there, or the workplace, etc, has to accept that. 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 would accurately represent society, which is why I'm unsure about this.
Though often times these kind of decisions are entrusted to the school boards.

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 deemed to be for the purpose of intolerance, then I can see why they would find that request unreasonable.

Last edited by Hiku - on 03 June 2019