Supreme Court to hear case on opting out of lessons with LGBTQ+ books

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Well said.

I completely understand where you are coming from with these concerns as a parent. Some of these books MOCO was using are definitely not appropriate for elementary aged children to read. However, the same argument about “being gay fundementally being about sexual behavior” could also be made for straight people. Should we also ban any books that have a relationship between a man and a woman as well. I suspect that you think this argument is nonsensical, but it seems like a double standard if you think any book that includes gay people is not appropriate for children. I am gay and I don't necessarily agree with children books that predominantly focus on someones identity as the topic of a book, but I am worried that this the outcome of this court ruling will effectively ban any books that have gay people in them (even incidentally) in public schools. I don't want my kids reading pride puppy either, but the implications of this court ruling are likely much larger than the absurd books that MOCO had in their curriculum. Will my kid be allowed to share a story about their summer vacation with their two dads or do parents with religious objections get to opt out of this story as well? Will a book that has a main character who is a single mother be unable to be read in class because some devoutly religious parents are opposed to this “lifestyle”. Parents having unlimited religious opt-out rights effectively becomes a veto authority over sections of the curriculum if people utilize it enough that it makes a teachers workload impossible to manage. Most Teachers don't have the time to make alternative lesson plans for every topic. They will just start removing any books with potential religious objections preemptively to avoid creating extra work for themselves.

I agree with you on much of this, but this case is here precisely because MoCo was unable to contain its own radicals. That overreach was always going to cause a reaction. And yes, the slippery slope is serious, but on the other hand, MoCo seriously overreached and other boards across the country have done the same. Not doing anything isn’t an option at this point.

The facts of this case are really bad for MoCo. They chose books that many people agree were inappropriate for young children (myself included). When those books started to be taught, parents pulled their kids. And it wasn’t just a few kids, it was “dozens” out of each class of around 120 kids, so a substantial percentage. This became hard to manage (they claimed) but rather than changing the curriculum they instead made attendance mandatory. And, they put these books throughout the curriculum, rather than in a specific health unit with opt-outs. Parents sued, and this ended up in the Supreme Court where MoCo’s attorney sounded arrogant and unprepared in oral argument.

Of course there is going to be a reaction, and yes it is probably going to cause a problematic slippery slope. But I don’t know what else could happen at this point. MoCo’s hubris caused this, and yes, a ruling that allows broad religious opt-out will cause more problems, but I also don’t see how MoCo can win under the facts here. Their position is simply unreasonable.

PP here - I should have said the Pride movement and pride parades are about sexual proclivities. I do not think marriage is about sex - either same-sex or opposite-sex. And marriages and relationships are not only about sex. But these books are not about relationships, but Pride and the pride movement. Pride parades are sexual and sexualized and not appropriate for kindergartners.

The pride movement also co-opted the rainbow which is the symbol of God’s covenant of grace and mercy to men. These books teach that the rainbow is the symbol of the pride movement and not God’s covenant, and I find that objectionable.

And yet I never learned or thought of the rainbow as a symbol of God’s covenant. So again, that would be your religious interpretation that you want everyone else to respect and honor. Red can be used to represent love or hate. Is it co-opting a movement adopts red and states what it means to them? And even if we say the pride movement co-opted the rainbow wouldn’t they be using it correctly as it’s meant to symbolize acceptance and love of everyone?

Then, you have never been exposed to the Bible or the story of Noah's Ark. That's your take. But, I am a teacher who posted earlier. Little children frequently would put rainbows in their drawings along with a house, flowers, and a sun. The Pride Parades take that innocence away.

There is already too much sexualization in our society for young children. We don't need to add Pride Parades. And, if you've ever seen a Pride Parade, you would know that Pride Puppy is a long way from what they are in reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just put the religious kids in a class together and the non-religious kids in another. I’m tired of religious people.

Even Kagan said that she could see even "non-religious" parents objecting to these books.

And, these books are not just about gay characters, they are glorifying drag queens, etc.

Incidental gay characters are okay, but these books are promoting gay characters.

These books are not in the "sex education" curriculum, they are in the language arts curriculum--and the parents are not allowed to opt their kids out.

I was a teacher before the Pride flag. In the old days, rainbows on drawings were a sign of innocence. No longer.

Are they not still? Is it impossible for things to have multiple meanings?

I see kids coloring with rainbows about sunny days or magical unicorns or heck just to try to use all the colors in the crayons box, all the time. I don’t immediately assume it has anything to do with the Pride flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This isn’t just a sex ed class. These readings are embedded throughout the curriculum so parents have fewer options to withdraw their children. Pride Puppy for example was being utilized in an English class.

The lesson plans go well beyond “gays exist” as has been pointed out. It includes the idea that biological sex is a “guess” which is a pseudo religious, non falsifiable concept that doesn’t belong in a school.

Again show us where this went much further? Pride Puppy is an A to Z kid’s book. Just because one of the searches in the appendix of the book is search for leather for L you all made it more than it is. Leather is a type of material. If kid was reading a Scottish book and we told them to look for Tartan or Kilt how would that be any different?

DP. Listen, it's not working. Your side's attempt to introduce sexual content to children and groom them into acceptance of your fetishes was caught and your cover story didn't work. Your reward is that SCOTUS will now take a sledgehammer to the entire LGBTQ edifice and crumble it as society cheers. Learn the lesson and stop the overreach before you lose gay marriage as well.

Umm 1)I have never nor do I ever expect to be attempting to groom children. 2)Kids are introduced to sexual content everyday (people holding hands, relationships, baby animals being born, etc). 3)I’m not incorrect or losing the argument when all you can do is resort to name calling or baseless accusations or fearful talking points(ie grooming).

And my side believes in freedom, civil rights, intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and appropriately preparing humans for the world they are to be in charge of one day. What is your side’s beliefs?

My side believes you're a nutjob to think babies being born, relationships, and people holding hands are sexual content, but homosexuals in fetishwear marching in a parade organized to celebrate the sex they have is not sexual content. My side also believes that you are a dishonest, dangerous person and no one like you should be in power. Fortunately, my side won the last election and you can sit mad for the next four years while we unravel your conspiracies against decency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Well said.

I completely understand where you are coming from with these concerns as a parent. Some of these books MOCO was using are definitely not appropriate for elementary aged children to read. However, the same argument about “being gay fundementally being about sexual behavior” could also be made for straight people. Should we also ban any books that have a relationship between a man and a woman as well. I suspect that you think this argument is nonsensical, but it seems like a double standard if you think any book that includes gay people is not appropriate for children. I am gay and I don't necessarily agree with children books that predominantly focus on someones identity as the topic of a book, but I am worried that this the outcome of this court ruling will effectively ban any books that have gay people in them (even incidentally) in public schools. I don't want my kids reading pride puppy either, but the implications of this court ruling are likely much larger than the absurd books that MOCO had in their curriculum. Will my kid be allowed to share a story about their summer vacation with their two dads or do parents with religious objections get to opt out of this story as well? Will a book that has a main character who is a single mother be unable to be read in class because some devoutly religious parents are opposed to this “lifestyle”. Parents having unlimited religious opt-out rights effectively becomes a veto authority over sections of the curriculum if people utilize it enough that it makes a teachers workload impossible to manage. Most Teachers don't have the time to make alternative lesson plans for every topic. They will just start removing any books with potential religious objections preemptively to avoid creating extra work for themselves.

I agree with you on much of this, but this case is here precisely because MoCo was unable to contain its own radicals. That overreach was always going to cause a reaction. And yes, the slippery slope is serious, but on the other hand, MoCo seriously overreached and other boards across the country have done the same. Not doing anything isn’t an option at this point.

The facts of this case are really bad for MoCo. They chose books that many people agree were inappropriate for young children (myself included). When those books started to be taught, parents pulled their kids. And it wasn’t just a few kids, it was “dozens” out of each class of around 120 kids, so a substantial percentage. This became hard to manage (they claimed) but rather than changing the curriculum they instead made attendance mandatory. And, they put these books throughout the curriculum, rather than in a specific health unit with opt-outs. Parents sued, and this ended up in the Supreme Court where MoCo’s attorney sounded arrogant and unprepared in oral argument.

Of course there is going to be a reaction, and yes it is probably going to cause a problematic slippery slope. But I don’t know what else could happen at this point. MoCo’s hubris caused this, and yes, a ruling that allows broad religious opt-out will cause more problems, but I also don’t see how MoCo can win under the facts here. Their position is simply unreasonable.

PP here - I should have said the Pride movement and pride parades are about sexual proclivities. I do not think marriage is about sex - either same-sex or opposite-sex. And marriages and relationships are not only about sex. But these books are not about relationships, but Pride and the pride movement. Pride parades are sexual and sexualized and not appropriate for kindergartners.

The pride movement also co-opted the rainbow which is the symbol of God’s covenant of grace and mercy to men. These books teach that the rainbow is the symbol of the pride movement and not God’s covenant, and I find that objectionable.

And yet I never learned or thought of the rainbow as a symbol of God’s covenant. So again, that would be your religious interpretation that you want everyone else to respect and honor. Red can be used to represent love or hate. Is it co-opting a movement adopts red and states what it means to them? And even if we say the pride movement co-opted the rainbow wouldn’t they be using it correctly as it’s meant to symbolize acceptance and love of everyone?

Then, you have never been exposed to the Bible or the story of Noah's Ark. That's your take. But, I am a teacher who posted earlier. Little children frequently would put rainbows in their drawings along with a house, flowers, and a sun. The Pride Parades take that innocence away.

There is already too much sexualization in our society for young children. We don't need to add Pride Parades. And, if you've ever seen a Pride Parade, you would know that Pride Puppy is a long way from what they are in reality.

You’ve articulate the point of why this book is not problematic. In the book there is nothing wrong with the Pride Parade. It’s just a parade. So how does a book about a parade sexualize children?

The answer: It doesn’t. It’s just a book. Yes, some kid is going to ask what the Pride Parade celebrates/honors and it’s an easy answer. It was born out of gay people advocating for equal treatment and wanting to celebrate acceptance of everyone. Simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should just put the religious kids in a class together and the non-religious kids in another. I’m tired of religious people.

Gender ideology is a religion at this point, and it is as fundamentalist in its own way as the far-right Christians and radical Islamists are.

I want radicalism of all kinds out of school, and that includes gender ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This isn’t just a sex ed class. These readings are embedded throughout the curriculum so parents have fewer options to withdraw their children. Pride Puppy for example was being utilized in an English class.

The lesson plans go well beyond “gays exist” as has been pointed out. It includes the idea that biological sex is a “guess” which is a pseudo religious, non falsifiable concept that doesn’t belong in a school.

Again show us where this went much further? Pride Puppy is an A to Z kid’s book. Just because one of the searches in the appendix of the book is search for leather for L you all made it more than it is. Leather is a type of material. If kid was reading a Scottish book and we told them to look for Tartan or Kilt how would that be any different?

DP. Listen, it's not working. Your side's attempt to introduce sexual content to children and groom them into acceptance of your fetishes was caught and your cover story didn't work. Your reward is that SCOTUS will now take a sledgehammer to the entire LGBTQ edifice and crumble it as society cheers. Learn the lesson and stop the overreach before you lose gay marriage as well.

Umm 1)I have never nor do I ever expect to be attempting to groom children. 2)Kids are introduced to sexual content everyday (people holding hands, relationships, baby animals being born, etc). 3)I’m not incorrect or losing the argument when all you can do is resort to name calling or baseless accusations or fearful talking points(ie grooming).

And my side believes in freedom, civil rights, intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and appropriately preparing humans for the world they are to be in charge of one day. What is your side’s beliefs?

My side believes you're a nutjob to think babies being born, relationships, and people holding hands are sexual content, but homosexuals in fetishwear marching in a parade organized to celebrate the sex they have is not sexual content. My side also believes that you are a dishonest, dangerous person and no one like you should be in power. Fortunately, my side won the last election and you can sit mad for the next four years while we unravel your conspiracies against decency.

Seems you’re the one who is mad. And considering how the folks in power are acting and talking I wouldn’t suggest you throw around the word decency. Because their behavior of lies, bullying, disregard for laws, and their abuse of Christianity is not what I define as decent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This isn’t just a sex ed class. These readings are embedded throughout the curriculum so parents have fewer options to withdraw their children. Pride Puppy for example was being utilized in an English class.

The lesson plans go well beyond “gays exist” as has been pointed out. It includes the idea that biological sex is a “guess” which is a pseudo religious, non falsifiable concept that doesn’t belong in a school.

Again show us where this went much further? Pride Puppy is an A to Z kid’s book. Just because one of the searches in the appendix of the book is search for leather for L you all made it more than it is. Leather is a type of material. If kid was reading a Scottish book and we told them to look for Tartan or Kilt how would that be any different?

Come on. In the context of pride parades, leather is not only a type of material. It is fetish and bondage wear at Pride. Nobody is using tartan as a tool of sexual gratification in Scottish kids books because that is not the primary use of tartan.

Please stop the idiocy. It is not working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Well said.

I completely understand where you are coming from with these concerns as a parent. Some of these books MOCO was using are definitely not appropriate for elementary aged children to read. However, the same argument about “being gay fundementally being about sexual behavior” could also be made for straight people. Should we also ban any books that have a relationship between a man and a woman as well. I suspect that you think this argument is nonsensical, but it seems like a double standard if you think any book that includes gay people is not appropriate for children. I am gay and I don't necessarily agree with children books that predominantly focus on someones identity as the topic of a book, but I am worried that this the outcome of this court ruling will effectively ban any books that have gay people in them (even incidentally) in public schools. I don't want my kids reading pride puppy either, but the implications of this court ruling are likely much larger than the absurd books that MOCO had in their curriculum. Will my kid be allowed to share a story about their summer vacation with their two dads or do parents with religious objections get to opt out of this story as well? Will a book that has a main character who is a single mother be unable to be read in class because some devoutly religious parents are opposed to this “lifestyle”. Parents having unlimited religious opt-out rights effectively becomes a veto authority over sections of the curriculum if people utilize it enough that it makes a teachers workload impossible to manage. Most Teachers don't have the time to make alternative lesson plans for every topic. They will just start removing any books with potential religious objections preemptively to avoid creating extra work for themselves.

I agree with you on much of this, but this case is here precisely because MoCo was unable to contain its own radicals. That overreach was always going to cause a reaction. And yes, the slippery slope is serious, but on the other hand, MoCo seriously overreached and other boards across the country have done the same. Not doing anything isn’t an option at this point.

The facts of this case are really bad for MoCo. They chose books that many people agree were inappropriate for young children (myself included). When those books started to be taught, parents pulled their kids. And it wasn’t just a few kids, it was “dozens” out of each class of around 120 kids, so a substantial percentage. This became hard to manage (they claimed) but rather than changing the curriculum they instead made attendance mandatory. And, they put these books throughout the curriculum, rather than in a specific health unit with opt-outs. Parents sued, and this ended up in the Supreme Court where MoCo’s attorney sounded arrogant and unprepared in oral argument.

Of course there is going to be a reaction, and yes it is probably going to cause a problematic slippery slope. But I don’t know what else could happen at this point. MoCo’s hubris caused this, and yes, a ruling that allows broad religious opt-out will cause more problems, but I also don’t see how MoCo can win under the facts here. Their position is simply unreasonable.

PP here - I should have said the Pride movement and pride parades are about sexual proclivities. I do not think marriage is about sex - either same-sex or opposite-sex. And marriages and relationships are not only about sex. But these books are not about relationships, but Pride and the pride movement. Pride parades are sexual and sexualized and not appropriate for kindergartners.

The pride movement also co-opted the rainbow which is the symbol of God’s covenant of grace and mercy to men. These books teach that the rainbow is the symbol of the pride movement and not God’s covenant, and I find that objectionable.

And yet I never learned or thought of the rainbow as a symbol of God’s covenant. So again, that would be your religious interpretation that you want everyone else to respect and honor. Red can be used to represent love or hate. Is it co-opting a movement adopts red and states what it means to them? And even if we say the pride movement co-opted the rainbow wouldn’t they be using it correctly as it’s meant to symbolize acceptance and love of everyone?

Then, you have never been exposed to the Bible or the story of Noah's Ark. That's your take. But, I am a teacher who posted earlier. Little children frequently would put rainbows in their drawings along with a house, flowers, and a sun. The Pride Parades take that innocence away.

There is already too much sexualization in our society for young children. We don't need to add Pride Parades. And, if you've ever seen a Pride Parade, you would know that Pride Puppy is a long way from what they are in reality.

You’ve articulate the point of why this book is not problematic. In the book there is nothing wrong with the Pride Parade. It’s just a parade. So how does a book about a parade sexualize children?

The answer: It doesn’t. It’s just a book. Yes, some kid is going to ask what the Pride Parade celebrates/honors and it’s an easy answer. It was born out of gay people advocating for equal treatment and wanting to celebrate acceptance of everyone. Simple.

Right, and we could describe Jenna Jameson as a beautiful woman who showcases the body's capabilities on camera. The fact that you can lawyer anything to make the age-inappropriate seem child-friendly doesn't change that you should not be pointing children towards obvious sexual content. The fact that you would try is why we call people like you groomers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Well said.

I completely understand where you are coming from with these concerns as a parent. Some of these books MOCO was using are definitely not appropriate for elementary aged children to read. However, the same argument about “being gay fundementally being about sexual behavior” could also be made for straight people. Should we also ban any books that have a relationship between a man and a woman as well. I suspect that you think this argument is nonsensical, but it seems like a double standard if you think any book that includes gay people is not appropriate for children. I am gay and I don't necessarily agree with children books that predominantly focus on someones identity as the topic of a book, but I am worried that this the outcome of this court ruling will effectively ban any books that have gay people in them (even incidentally) in public schools. I don't want my kids reading pride puppy either, but the implications of this court ruling are likely much larger than the absurd books that MOCO had in their curriculum. Will my kid be allowed to share a story about their summer vacation with their two dads or do parents with religious objections get to opt out of this story as well? Will a book that has a main character who is a single mother be unable to be read in class because some devoutly religious parents are opposed to this “lifestyle”. Parents having unlimited religious opt-out rights effectively becomes a veto authority over sections of the curriculum if people utilize it enough that it makes a teachers workload impossible to manage. Most Teachers don't have the time to make alternative lesson plans for every topic. They will just start removing any books with potential religious objections preemptively to avoid creating extra work for themselves.

And that would be a lot of booms to remove. Nothing on Halloween because some think it’s still about the devil. No Harry Potter or boos of the like because folks don’t like magic. Etc etc. Like where would it end.

That's the funny thing - haven't most MCPS elementary schools removed Halloween because so many of their population opted out?

[Anonymous]

Are you ok with the Little Mermaid where it’s encouraged to “kiss the girl?l”

Pride is not inherently sexual. Not all gay people engage in debauchery. It’s wild that some of you are so angry

The MoCo stuff went too far but a kid knowing that gays exist is not introducing them to sex. Telling my kid that his friend has two days and families come in different forms does not lead to a discussion about sex. Y’all have deep rooted issues if you immediately think gay=sex. Haha, lesbian bed death proves it ain’t about sex!!

[Anonymous]

*two dads

[Anonymous]

It's been hammered again and again in this very thread that this wouldn't be an issue if it were just casual inclusion of gay relationships or parents in a story. The issue is the most recent generation of LGBT activists have hijacked the equality movement that resulted in acceptance of gay marriage and want to use it to shove kink into the classroom or wherever else they can. People don't want it. It's a loser politically and it's sure to be a loser in the courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just put the religious kids in a class together and the non-religious kids in another. I’m tired of religious people.

Gender ideology is a religion at this point, and it is as fundamentalist in its own way as the far-right Christians and radical Islamists are.

I want radicalism of all kinds out of school, and that includes gender ideology.

I am unclear what you mean by “gender ideology.” The public throws around terms without defining them and I suspect you have no idea what you’re talking about. Telling girls they need to wear dresses and be a SAHM is a gender ideology but I suspect it isn’t what you’re referring to.

[Anonymous]

The online activist class seems unable to define their own terms, or stick to them. Of course you're clear on what PP meant and are playing dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This isn’t just a sex ed class. These readings are embedded throughout the curriculum so parents have fewer options to withdraw their children. Pride Puppy for example was being utilized in an English class.

The lesson plans go well beyond “gays exist” as has been pointed out. It includes the idea that biological sex is a “guess” which is a pseudo religious, non falsifiable concept that doesn’t belong in a school.

Again show us where this went much further? Pride Puppy is an A to Z kid’s book. Just because one of the searches in the appendix of the book is search for leather for L you all made it more than it is. Leather is a type of material. If kid was reading a Scottish book and we told them to look for Tartan or Kilt how would that be any different?

Come on. In the context of pride parades, leather is not only a type of material. It is fetish and bondage wear at Pride. Nobody is using tartan as a tool of sexual gratification in Scottish kids books because that is not the primary use of tartan.

Please stop the idiocy. It is not working.

The primary use of leather is not fetish. You’re applying your interpretation onto it and assuming a kid reading Pride Puppy would do the same. News flash they wouldn’t. They might not even know what leather is even though that might have sat on leather chairs or seen and touched leather purses.

In the context of this book what leather would a kid find. A leash, a purse, boots, they might (and that a stretch) say something on the motorcycle. And most importantly, that is only one of a dozen L words they could have been searching for.