I don't think your question has anything to do the topic. This is not at all about legalisation.

No most people are exactly condeming their action. The action is not just people protesting, the action is people protesting in order to remove LGBT+ people from school books.

This is a overly dramatic way to describe a mandatory education system. I think mandatory education systems are a huge achievement and something very good but you seem to disagree with me.

Also nobody is disputing that an individual can have its own values and the possibility to pass those values on to its children. The question is who should decide how children are educated? the parents or society aka the state?

And I agree. The schools should teach it. Parents should just be given the CHOICE to opt out. The school teaching the lessons and the parents opting out is not mutually exclusive. Most parents may want their kids to be taught said lesson after all.

We share the same values. I feel the lesson is a good thing. What I do not agree with is fact that there is no choice in it. Consider this: you will not always agree with what the majority feels is socially important at the time. Things change and priorities and politics can change. One day you might disagree with something the schools are teaching.

Then what you are doing via mandatory lessons in non-universally accepted values and values that directly contradict with culture is to force those with said culture to home school their kids. Instead of being given a choice and have them (grudgingly or not) enroll their kids into schools that can help said kids assimilate better, they will end up taking their kids out of school. If you think their thoughts are harmful now, consider the impact if 100% of the kids' information come directly from said parents. I feel that you are losing the forest for the trees here. I am not trying to be disingenuous here (and when was the first time I "did this"?) I simply reversed your logic to demonstrate its flaws and to make it more relevant to our discussion. We do not take away choice and choice is not evil/extreme just because other ppl exercise their choice to come up with some pretty evil/extreme beliefs.

People like to throw around the "tolerate the intolerant" thing like it justifies intolerance. It does not. Intolerance is nuanced and has levels. We all each have our prejudices but we do not dismiss the argument coming from the other side and excuse our actions or dehumanize them just because we can label them or their beliefs as intolerant. Basically, you do not "win" the debate just because you can call the other side racist. I am not saying you are doing any of this, just saying that this is what a lot of people believe and this is in line with my point. We always determine what action causes more direct harm in the overall scope of things. Thoughts and opinions do no harm unless they are acted upon.  Oppressing a culture (and that is how I see the whole "you must assimilate the values I want right now with no choice") does a lot of harm regardless of good intentions.

Maybe to hardliners.  That's why I don't fuck around with mainstream religion.  You can never please the fucking hardliners.  Hell there are Catholics that probably still consider masturbation a crime.  If that's the case I've killed millions of babies and I am proud.  See what work I did there to come up with last sentence that usually most people would be disgusted by?  You've killed millions of babies?  Disgusting.  Oh you were just masturbating? Nevermind.  See this is where you can seperate the religious nut jobs from normal people. 

1) Mandatory education has a lot to do with legislation does it not? I know it's not ALL ABOUT legislation but legislation has something to do with this so I feel that my question was not off topic.

My point was to illustrate what people should find condmenable. We condemn actions not thoughts.

2) And I will disagree with them if it is about removing LGBT people from books.  The ones I agree with are the ones simply asking to opt out. They should have that choice.

3) When one can insert one's politics into mandatory education. You make one's politics mandatory. The fact is, I agree with the LGBT lessons being there. I disagree about it being mandatory seeing as there could be a time wherein I will disagree with the majority politics at the time and I would also want to be heard when that happens.

4) I'm sorry but the current majority does not get to decide how I raise my kids. My values may be in line with the majority atm, but that will not always be the case and when that time comes, I reserve the right to protest and let my voice be heard.

They sure like voting for Democrats because of the whole open borders and little to no vetting.

Zero evidence? are you sure? did you put some effort in learning about Islam or, as I stated before, are content with your current situation because you're happy with it?

You missed my point again concerning empathy, and you think I'm the one missing your point, what ever the feeling is, it is relative. "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself", and if I don't abide by this rule? nothing obligates me.

Can't you see that I put the word prophet between quotes? I know what atheism is, probably more than you, you ignore simple atheistic facts such as morals relativism.

You fell into double standard fallacy buddy, you kept saying that I have no evidence to backup my claims, and yet you just throw statements randomly without providing evidence. And where did I put words into your mouth?

You want evidences, here you go: check the 3rd question in this page, read "Exploring dimensions of human sexuality" and "My genes made me do it"

I already told you that the evil acts of a certain group that claims to follow an ideology is not an argument against the ideology itself, why do you insist on ignoring this? The fact that you see the all religions as the same is another proof of your superficiality.

Ambiguous? this?: Big bang [Quran 21.30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the Earth were meshed together then We ripped them apart? And then We made of water everything living? Would they still not believe? ; Expansion  [Quran 51.47] And the heaven, We built it with craftsmanship and We are still expanding. ; Big crunch [Quran 21.104] On the day when We will fold the heaven, like the folder compacts the books, and as We originated the first creation We shall return it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will deliver.   If this is ambiguous then you probably want God to use scientific term even if they didn't exist 1400 years ago, add to that that the Quran is not science book, so it doesn't have to go through details.

Evolution is a fact because you've been told so, and tbh it's a very fancy theory, but have you ever searched about the counter-arguments? or do you only believe in it because it is the only explanation available for the origin of creatures, let's not open this topic too because we're already discussing enough stuff.

Sorry but I think you showed that -with all due respect- you're a dogmatic and superficial atheist, and you make a lot of bold statements. by the way you only respond to a small part of my arguments.

1) I worded this badly. We already established in this thread that the protest is not illegal and nobody wants it to be illegalised so the question about their thought seemed a little bit redundant/point less to me.

2) Now that's a much more interesting discussion I think. I'm against having a opt out choice. Why? Because it would be against to reason those books exist in the first place. The children whose perants don't tell them about other cultures and LGBT people or tell them bad things(sinner, molesters, etc.) are the target audience for this change in the school books.

3) But that's how school is since the beginning, it is impossible to make school unpolitical, it will always reflect the current political consensus. In a democracy you can decide what politics influence the school system.

4) You, these protesting muslims and everyone else can raise their kids as they want, at home but not at school, That's the way it is in pretty much every  western country.

Edited due to replying to wrong person. :p

1) People condemn them for their thoughts (Islamaphobia is a thought). I feel that this is not how society should work.

2) The overall intention behind the books may be good but as the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". This is about government telling parents how to raise their kids and forcing them to assimilate. No one should be ok with this. Are you seriously ok with giving up all your rights as a parent just so you can push one good act thru? As a father, I am not. There are way too many things government may do that I can disagree with for me to do this.

3) No, schools reflect the political consensus of the teachers/educators, not society. And the current political climate can change within a few years so while you seem to be ok with everything now, consider what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot and the protesting parents became the majority (or at least a strong enough minority to impact elections) and start pushing their political agendas in schools (considering birth and immigration rates, might not be all that far fetched). Not so attractive now is it? That is why politics should always be out of schools IMO.

4) I disagree. Plenty of schools allow their students to opt out. As far as I can see, I can see both parents AND students protesting to opt out of this class, the only ones insisting are the educators...

I didn't say that?!? You quoted the wrong person DrDoomz