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, 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.