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

thismeintiel said:
RolStoppable said:

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.

Both are indoctrination. Just because you agree with one form and not the other doesn't change that fact.

So teaching morality is always indoctrination? Nice the term "indoctrination" became completely meaningless!



Around the Network
TheBird said:
Been happening over in Toronto for about a year now. And children shouldn't learn sex ed at such a young age, it should only be in middle school when their bodies start to change, so everything they are taught makes sense, and is relevant.

They aren't teaching them about sex... Or how reproductive processes work as far as I know... Making this argument entirely redundant.

TheBird said:
Teaching a 5 year old about gay people will only confuse em and scare them. They should be playing Minecraft (Not Fortnite), learning social skills & creativity. That is where the school system fails, not enough Minecraft.

5 year olds are more intelligent than you give them credit for.
All you need to do is say "That is a Gay couple, they are two boys that love each other". - A 5 year old gets that concept, I should know, because that is exactly how I get explained to children... And the children carry on fine and treat me like anyone else.

Teaching children how to be tactful around LGBT people is a social skill... One you might have missed out on perhaps?

Machiavellian said:

Lol, if you believe just saying people love each other and leave it at that then you have no experience in this area. 

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

Machiavellian said:

That's the simplistic logic people state when they have not had this conversation multiple times.  Once a child curiosity is engaged within a subject they will constantly talk about it.  They will bring the subject up multiple times and during the oddest of places and events.  If you have the talk about how children are brought into the world then you have to talk about Dad and Dad.  There is no tactful way around these questions because you need to be honest with the child not sugar coat it with BS.

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?

Machiavellian said:

So I will say again, this book doesn't do enough and it leaves gaps that need to be filled in by either parents or someone else.  What it will not do is bring any more education to the subject for a 5 year old besides a lot of questions.

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.

Carl said:

Not much to elaborate upon.

Bradford has a large Muslim population and it's not really surprising to see the Muslim community band together to protest against something they disagree with. They're good at it, it's quite admirable. That this is happening in Birmingham, a City very similar to Bradford demographic-wise, doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

I am a hard-line Atheist, very anti-religious.
But freedom of protest is a fundamental pillar of all free democracies, so their right to protest should be respected and supported, even though I inherently disagree with their particular message.

The fact that a religion that is related to Christianity is against LGBT issue is not surprising in the least, religion has a terrible track record of these things.

What would truly be sad is if it gains traction and influences the cities stance on LGBT issues.

DrDoomz said:

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.

If the "Tolerant" are violent, then they are being intolerant.

DonFerrari said:

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 don't disagree with you. I think there are more important topics for children to learn... In saying that, we aren't at a point where LGBT people are treated like everyone else socially as a whole, so it's still important, but as the world stage becomes more accepting of LGBT people, then the need for LGBT education should probably be reduced.

I mean in high-school I was learning multiple languages, not once have I applied those learning's in the real world, it would have been far more useful if I learned how to do taxes or programming. (Which I learned anyway.)


MrWayne said:
thismeintiel said:

Both are indoctrination. Just because you agree with one form and not the other doesn't change that fact.

So teaching morality is always indoctrination? Nice the term "indoctrination" became completely meaningless!

Morality is not black and white... Morals change over the course of time and will vary depending on perspective.
Remember... At one point it was moral for women to serve men... Now it's immoral for them to be anything less than equals.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
TheBird said:
Been happening over in Toronto for about a year now. And children shouldn't learn sex ed at such a young age, it should only be in middle school when their bodies start to change, so everything they are taught makes sense, and is relevant.

They aren't teaching them about sex... Or how reproductive processes work as far as I know... Making this argument entirely redundant.

TheBird said:
Teaching a 5 year old about gay people will only confuse em and scare them. They should be playing Minecraft (Not Fortnite), learning social skills & creativity. That is where the school system fails, not enough Minecraft.

5 year olds are more intelligent than you give them credit for.
All you need to do is say "That is a Gay couple, they are two boys that love each other". - A 5 year old gets that concept, I should know, because that is exactly how I get explained to children... And the children carry on fine and treat me like anyone else.

Teaching children how to be tactful around LGBT people is a social skill... One you might have missed out on perhaps?









Thankfully got through the system before they started teaching nonfactual information like that. And being tactful around LGBT is not a necessary social skill, nor should they be treated special and different from the rest (I yearn for true equality). Children are not obligated to learn or think like that, and it serves no use to society to divide and treat people differently and 'tactfully" by groups based on their sexual orientation (LGBT), race, religion, or gender (Boy, girl). Kids should be taught to treat everyone equally and fairly.

Dividing people by groups is inherently racist and sexist, and the left has a serious obsession with doing that.



TheBird said:
Pemalite said:

They aren't teaching them about sex... Or how reproductive processes work as far as I know... Making this argument entirely redundant.

5 year olds are more intelligent than you give them credit for.
All you need to do is say "That is a Gay couple, they are two boys that love each other". - A 5 year old gets that concept, I should know, because that is exactly how I get explained to children... And the children carry on fine and treat me like anyone else.

Teaching children how to be tactful around LGBT people is a social skill... One you might have missed out on perhaps?









Thankfully got through the system before they started teaching nonfactual information like that. And being tactful around LGBT is not a necessary social skill, nor should they be treated special and different from the rest (I yearn for true equality). Children are not obligated to learn or think like that, and it serves no use to society to divide and treat people differently and 'tactfully" by groups based on their sexual orientation (LGBT), race, religion, or gender (Boy, girl). Kids should be taught to treat everyone equally and fairly.

Dividing people by groups is inherently racist and sexist, and the left has a serious obsession with doing that.

I would think that showing kids a book about how there are loving families of all kinds is how you teach kids to treat everyone equally and fairly, by showing them that people who look or live differently than they do are still people just like them. What would be your proposal instead?



...

TheBird said:

Thankfully got through the system before they started teaching nonfactual information like that. And being tactful around LGBT is not a necessary social skill, nor should they be treated special and different from the rest (I yearn for true equality). Children are not obligated to learn or think like that, and it serves no use to society to divide and treat people differently and 'tactfully" by groups based on their sexual orientation (LGBT), race, religion, or gender (Boy, girl). Kids should be taught to treat everyone equally and fairly.

Dividing people by groups is inherently racist and sexist, and the left has a serious obsession with doing that.

Please. Don't paint the right as some proponent of true equality whilst demonizing the left, both sides of the political divide have a long history of treating various demographics unfairly... They are as bad as each other! As someone who sits in the center I am actually able to recognize that.

Either way, the path to equality is something that has taken far to long, decades in-fact... And still hasn't been achieved world-wide.

Heck, same-sex marriage only became legal here a couple years ago... And there are still fundamental equality rights issues... For example I am not allowed to donate blood to save someones life. - Why? Because of STI's. - Yet, it doesn't matter if I had a blood test that proves I am clean, that is not equality... That is in fact discrimination.

As for children... The fact of the matter is, school exists to teach, to teach children about how to live in the real world and to explain to children the natural laws... Be it mathematics, science, biology, physics, language, you name it. - And guess what? Homosexuals are included in several of those topics.

If you don't believe that children should be taught how to be respectful of LGBTQI based issues and culture, then you are entitled to hold that belief... But I respectfully and strongly disagree as you haven't walked in my shoes, seen what I have seen or experienced what I have experienced over the past decades... And I hope whenever you reproduce that your children are raised in an environment that is far more welcoming and respectful than what I experienced when I was young if they do end up being LGBT.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
TheBird said:
Been happening over in Toronto for about a year now. And children shouldn't learn sex ed at such a young age, it should only be in middle school when their bodies start to change, so everything they are taught makes sense, and is relevant.

They aren't teaching them about sex... Or how reproductive processes work as far as I know... Making this argument entirely redundant.

TheBird said:
Teaching a 5 year old about gay people will only confuse em and scare them. They should be playing Minecraft (Not Fortnite), learning social skills & creativity. That is where the school system fails, not enough Minecraft.

5 year olds are more intelligent than you give them credit for.
All you need to do is say "That is a Gay couple, they are two boys that love each other". - A 5 year old gets that concept, I should know, because that is exactly how I get explained to children... And the children carry on fine and treat me like anyone else.

Teaching children how to be tactful around LGBT people is a social skill... One you might have missed out on perhaps?

Machiavellian said:

Lol, if you believe just saying people love each other and leave it at that then you have no experience in this area. 

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

Machiavellian said:

That's the simplistic logic people state when they have not had this conversation multiple times.  Once a child curiosity is engaged within a subject they will constantly talk about it.  They will bring the subject up multiple times and during the oddest of places and events.  If you have the talk about how children are brought into the world then you have to talk about Dad and Dad.  There is no tactful way around these questions because you need to be honest with the child not sugar coat it with BS.

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?

Machiavellian said:

So I will say again, this book doesn't do enough and it leaves gaps that need to be filled in by either parents or someone else.  What it will not do is bring any more education to the subject for a 5 year old besides a lot of questions.

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.

Carl said:

Not much to elaborate upon.

Bradford has a large Muslim population and it's not really surprising to see the Muslim community band together to protest against something they disagree with. They're good at it, it's quite admirable. That this is happening in Birmingham, a City very similar to Bradford demographic-wise, doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

I am a hard-line Atheist, very anti-religious.
But freedom of protest is a fundamental pillar of all free democracies, so their right to protest should be respected and supported, even though I inherently disagree with their particular message.

The fact that a religion that is related to Christianity is against LGBT issue is not surprising in the least, religion has a terrible track record of these things.

What would truly be sad is if it gains traction and influences the cities stance on LGBT issues.

DrDoomz said:

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.

If the "Tolerant" are violent, then they are being intolerant.

DonFerrari said:

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 don't disagree with you. I think there are more important topics for children to learn... In saying that, we aren't at a point where LGBT people are treated like everyone else socially as a whole, so it's still important, but as the world stage becomes more accepting of LGBT people, then the need for LGBT education should probably be reduced.

I mean in high-school I was learning multiple languages, not once have I applied those learning's in the real world, it would have been far more useful if I learned how to do taxes or programming. (Which I learned anyway.)


MrWayne said:

So teaching morality is always indoctrination? Nice the term "indoctrination" became completely meaningless!

Morality is not black and white... Morals change over the course of time and will vary depending on perspective.
Remember... At one point it was moral for women to serve men... Now it's immoral for them to be anything less than equals.

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.

Last edited by DonFerrari - on 03 June 2019

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."

TheBird said:
Been happening over in Toronto for about a year now. 1). And children shouldn't learn sex ed at such a young age, it should only be in middle school when their bodies start to change, so everything they are taught makes sense, and is relevant.
2). Teaching a 5 year old about gay people will only confuse em and scare them. They should be playing Minecraft (Not Fortnite), learning social skills & creativity. That is where the school system fails, not enough Minecraft.

1). Out of curiosity, why did you reply without actually watching the video? It doesn't discuss sex education at all.

2). Confuse and scare them? What do you base that conclusion from?  It might surprise you that 5 year olds are incredibly tolerant, welcoming, and accepting of such concepts. Being confused and scared seems to be a reflection of what they see from their own parents on the topic.  It confuses and scares mommy and daddy, so now I'm confused and scared too. If you show compassion and understanding, they will too.

I'll repost something I wrote earlier.  I'd like your take on it.

5 year old: Daddy, what are those 2 people doing?
Dad: Getting married.
5 year old: Why?
Dad: Because they love each other.
5 year old: Oh. Ok.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Pemalite said:
TheBird said:
Been happening over in Toronto for about a year now. And children shouldn't learn sex ed at such a young age, it should only be in middle school when their bodies start to change, so everything they are taught makes sense, and is relevant.

They aren't teaching them about sex... Or how reproductive processes work as far as I know... Making this argument entirely redundant.

TheBird said:
Teaching a 5 year old about gay people will only confuse em and scare them. They should be playing Minecraft (Not Fortnite), learning social skills & creativity. That is where the school system fails, not enough Minecraft.

5 year olds are more intelligent than you give them credit for.
All you need to do is say "That is a Gay couple, they are two boys that love each other". - A 5 year old gets that concept, I should know, because that is exactly how I get explained to children... And the children carry on fine and treat me like anyone else.

Teaching children how to be tactful around LGBT people is a social skill... One you might have missed out on perhaps?

Machiavellian said:

Lol, if you believe just saying people love each other and leave it at that then you have no experience in this area. 

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

Machiavellian said:

That's the simplistic logic people state when they have not had this conversation multiple times.  Once a child curiosity is engaged within a subject they will constantly talk about it.  They will bring the subject up multiple times and during the oddest of places and events.  If you have the talk about how children are brought into the world then you have to talk about Dad and Dad.  There is no tactful way around these questions because you need to be honest with the child not sugar coat it with BS.

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?

Machiavellian said:

So I will say again, this book doesn't do enough and it leaves gaps that need to be filled in by either parents or someone else.  What it will not do is bring any more education to the subject for a 5 year old besides a lot of questions.

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.

Carl said:

Not much to elaborate upon.

Bradford has a large Muslim population and it's not really surprising to see the Muslim community band together to protest against something they disagree with. They're good at it, it's quite admirable. That this is happening in Birmingham, a City very similar to Bradford demographic-wise, doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

I am a hard-line Atheist, very anti-religious.
But freedom of protest is a fundamental pillar of all free democracies, so their right to protest should be respected and supported, even though I inherently disagree with their particular message.

The fact that a religion that is related to Christianity is against LGBT issue is not surprising in the least, religion has a terrible track record of these things.

What would truly be sad is if it gains traction and influences the cities stance on LGBT issues.

DrDoomz said:

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.

If the "Tolerant" are violent, then they are being intolerant.

DonFerrari said:

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 don't disagree with you. I think there are more important topics for children to learn... In saying that, we aren't at a point where LGBT people are treated like everyone else socially as a whole, so it's still important, but as the world stage becomes more accepting of LGBT people, then the need for LGBT education should probably be reduced.

I mean in high-school I was learning multiple languages, not once have I applied those learning's in the real world, it would have been far more useful if I learned how to do taxes or programming. (Which I learned anyway.)


MrWayne said:

So teaching morality is always indoctrination? Nice the term "indoctrination" became completely meaningless!

Morality is not black and white... Morals change over the course of time and will vary depending on perspective.
Remember... At one point it was moral for women to serve men... Now it's immoral for them to be anything less than equals.

That was a typo. I meant to say "intolerant". Didn't feel the need to edit since Hiku (the one I was replying to) pointed it out and I acknowledged the error.



DonFerrari said:
vivster said:

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.

I'd rather let someone educated play with my kid than the dumbest people on earth.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

SpokenTruth said:
TheBird said:
Been happening over in Toronto for about a year now. 1). And children shouldn't learn sex ed at such a young age, it should only be in middle school when their bodies start to change, so everything they are taught makes sense, and is relevant.
2). Teaching a 5 year old about gay people will only confuse em and scare them. They should be playing Minecraft (Not Fortnite), learning social skills & creativity. That is where the school system fails, not enough Minecraft.

1). Out of curiosity, why did you reply without actually watching the video? It doesn't discuss sex education at all.

2). Confuse and scare them? What do you base that conclusion from?  It might surprise you that 5 year olds are incredibly tolerant, welcoming, and accepting of such concepts. Being confused and scared seems to be a reflection of what they see from their own parents on the topic.  It confuses and scares mommy and daddy, so now I'm confused and scared too. If you show compassion and understanding, they will too.

I'll repost something I wrote earlier.  I'd like your take on it.

5 year old: Daddy, what are those 2 people doing?
Dad: Getting married.
5 year old: Why?
Dad: Because they love each other.
5 year old: Oh. Ok.

Sorry to burst your bubble but child have a lot of prejudice and evil on them. They usually harm much more and harder than adults.

vivster said:
DonFerrari said:

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

I'd rather let someone educated play with my kid than the dumbest people on earth.

By dumbest people on earth you mean yourself? Since you are saying against parent teaching versus government.



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."