Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

Would the religious kids stay home every day if there was an openly gay teacher at the school, that had a picture of their spouse at their workspace?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would the religious kids stay home every day if there was an openly gay teacher at the school, that had a picture of their spouse at their workspace?

No, because that's completely different than what's been happening in MCPS. I recommend you read the opinion to get better acquainted with the facts of the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

[Anonymous]

Sanity reigns!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

"Tolerant" teachers like you are the exact reason this Supreme Court decision is necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the religious kids stay home every day if there was an openly gay teacher at the school, that had a picture of their spouse at their workspace?

No, because that's completely different than what's been happening in MCPS. I recommend you read the opinion to get better acquainted with the facts of the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

There are a lot of people on this thread posting extremely dumb hypotheticals that don’t relate to the facts of the case, the ruling, caselaw generally. It’s so tedious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the religious kids stay home every day if there was an openly gay teacher at the school, that had a picture of their spouse at their workspace?

No, because that's completely different than what's been happening in MCPS. I recommend you read the opinion to get better acquainted with the facts of the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

Can you explain to me how reading about a gay couple is different from meeting in person a gay man with a partner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

"Tolerant" teachers like you are the exact reason this Supreme Court decision is necessary.

I learned my lessons from the "loving God" people very, very accurately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d really like to keep sexual orientation out of the curriculum. Kids have no problem with the concept of love and marriage and will do whatever is in the culture happily. There is such broad support for gay marriage that I see no reason to keep beating the drum.

Does that mean keep heterosexuality out of the curriculum? It's going to be hard to find books where children have neither same sex nor opposite sex parents.

This. FFS, it isn't ramming it down their throats or beating a drum to have a regular old story book where a kid just happens to have two moms. But imagine the kid with two moms who sees story after story after story with a mom and a dad. That starts to feel isolating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no issue with acknowledging different sexual characteristics. There’s no reason for a public school to be celebrating one or another.

If a school was going to make a choice to celebrate a particular sexuality, heterosexuality is more likely to produce children and thus allow civilization to continue. So if we can’t agree to just leave everyone alone, then we may at well flip it around and celebrate heterosexuality instead.

Moreover, if it becomes some sort of political litmus test, realize that the subcultures that promote heterosexual families will outperform and outnumber those that don’t and so the tides will turn inevitably.

It would be wise to simply cement a norm of leaving everyone alone to live their life while there’s still significant goodwill.

Exactly. The LGBTQIA+ activists have overplayed their hand. Instead of taking the win after gay marriage was legalized nationwide, they kept pushing more extreme positions, like teaching gender ideology to Kindergartners and defending biological males in girls' sports. The vast majority of families in any public school system consist of heterosexual parents for obvious reasons. Most are fine with a live and let live approach, but the overreach by activists in the past few years shows that this tolerance has limits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the religious kids stay home every day if there was an openly gay teacher at the school, that had a picture of their spouse at their workspace?

No, because that's completely different than what's been happening in MCPS. I recommend you read the opinion to get better acquainted with the facts of the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

Can you explain to me how reading about a gay couple is different from meeting in person a gay man with a partner?

Sure. If you look at the books in question in the SCOTUS case it's clear that the lesson to kids was that there's a "right" and "wrong" opinion on same sex marriage as well as on contentious sex/gender issues. That view was then taught to young, impressionable children via their teachers. Whereas having a gay teacher is nothing like that at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no issue with acknowledging different sexual characteristics. There’s no reason for a public school to be celebrating one or another.

If a school was going to make a choice to celebrate a particular sexuality, heterosexuality is more likely to produce children and thus allow civilization to continue. So if we can’t agree to just leave everyone alone, then we may at well flip it around and celebrate heterosexuality instead.

Moreover, if it becomes some sort of political litmus test, realize that the subcultures that promote heterosexual families will outperform and outnumber those that don’t and so the tides will turn inevitably.

It would be wise to simply cement a norm of leaving everyone alone to live their life while there’s still significant goodwill.

Exactly. The LGBTQIA+ activists have overplayed their hand. Instead of taking the win after gay marriage was legalized nationwide, they kept pushing more extreme positions, like teaching gender ideology to Kindergartners and defending biological males in girls' sports. The vast majority of families in any public school system consist of heterosexual parents for obvious reasons. Most are fine with a live and let live approach, but the overreach by activists in the past few years shows that this tolerance has limits.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason we teach kids about sexual orientation is so they don't mistreat the kid who was born biologically male when they want to wear a pink dress. I teach kindergarten and some kids say, "but he's a boy! why is he wearing a sparkly dress?" That's fine, a five year old might have questions. But what I teach is this: Anyone can wear any color they want. Colors don't belong to boys or girls, they belong to everyone. Dresses don't belong to boys or girls, they can belong to anyone. Everyone gets to tell their own story, and we don't get to tell other people's stories for them. We are kind to everyone. I don't get into the biology of it. Respect is respect and kindness is kindness. I mean, heck, I manage to be kind to the extreme conservative radical fringe families in my school. It can be done.

You sound like a wonderful teacher. Your students are lucky to have you. I used to teach 5th grade and remember having a few students who would have to leave the room when we did the "family life" unit. Often, those students would feel embarrassed and/or wonder why their peers got to learn information that they didn't. We always said that they are just choosing to get the information at home. But kids will notice who leaves the room during LGBTQ friendly lessons and will ask questions. I hope teachers will show compassion for all. And I hope parents who opt out of these lessons will know that LGBTQ discussions or questions will happen organically (like your example about a boy wearing a dress to school)-- are teachers supposed to ask those students to stand out in the hall when they answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the religious kids stay home every day if there was an openly gay teacher at the school, that had a picture of their spouse at their workspace?

No, because that's completely different than what's been happening in MCPS. I recommend you read the opinion to get better acquainted with the facts of the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

Can you explain to me how reading about a gay couple is different from meeting in person a gay man with a partner?

Sure. If you look at the books in question in the SCOTUS case it's clear that the lesson to kids was that there's a "right" and "wrong" opinion on same sex marriage as well as on contentious sex/gender issues. That view was then taught to young, impressionable children via their teachers. Whereas having a gay teacher is nothing like that at all.

Yeah. The argument that the books merely “exposed” kids to a perspective is BS. Those books were clearly trying to persuade kids of a very distinct viewpoints. The Born Ready book in particular was offensive in its overt attempts to brainwash kids.

[Anonymous]

I would like the following children’s book:

“John marries Susie and they go to religious services each week. Bill marries George and they go to pride parades. They all agree to leave each other the **** alone to enjoy their life in peace.”

Now, back to math class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason we teach kids about sexual orientation is so they don't mistreat the kid who was born biologically male when they want to wear a pink dress. I teach kindergarten and some kids say, "but he's a boy! why is he wearing a sparkly dress?" That's fine, a five year old might have questions. But what I teach is this: Anyone can wear any color they want. Colors don't belong to boys or girls, they belong to everyone. Dresses don't belong to boys or girls, they can belong to anyone. Everyone gets to tell their own story, and we don't get to tell other people's stories for them. We are kind to everyone. I don't get into the biology of it. Respect is respect and kindness is kindness. I mean, heck, I manage to be kind to the extreme conservative radical fringe families in my school. It can be done.
Thank you for being a good teacher.