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: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.

You cannot truly be this stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

No one is shoving kink into the classroom. Especially not for elementary school students. That’s just some talking point created to rile up opposition. The same way Mom’s For Liberty would like to ban the book on Ruby Bridges stating it’s too much for kids.

[Anonymous]

That's just not true and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!!

We are here precisely because MoCo went too far (as have other districts), and because MoCo refused to moderate, there will likely be sweeping powers provided to parents. Well done MoCo radicals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's just not true and you know it.

What isn’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. Just read the article in WAPO today about Meta and "hate speech."

The LGBTQ community calls speech that says only biological girls should be playing in girls' sports "hate speech."
Meta, thankfully, said "no."
The comments in WAPO today are against Meta. The commenters insist that it is "hate speech." I assume the comments were promoted by the "online activist class."

Montgomery County went too far. There are plenty of ABC books that do not include drag queens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. Just read the article in WAPO today about Meta and "hate speech."

The LGBTQ community calls speech that says only biological girls should be playing in girls' sports "hate speech."
Meta, thankfully, said "no."
The comments in WAPO today are against Meta. The commenters insist that it is "hate speech." I assume the comments were promoted by the "online activist class."

Montgomery County went too far. There are plenty of ABC books that do not include drag queens.

The New York Times recently did an article about the SJSU volleyball team and the comments were largely against transgender women in women’s sports. I wonder why such a difference in comments.

[Anonymous]

People are offended by the existence of drag queens?

Well, no one can ever tell me again that Moco is some progressive bastion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are offended by the existence of drag queens?

Well, no one can ever tell me again that Moco is some progressive bastion.

Drag is sexist minstrelry which is quickly heading to the dustbin of history. You are behind the times and regressive in embracing it, and are obviously over 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Do they just want to pretend an entire group of people don't exist?

No child in the US today will escape the knowledge that the LGBTQ+ community exists. It doesn’t need to be taught in schools.

What?! Existence isnt the lesson dumba##.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!!

We are here precisely because MoCo went too far (as have other districts), and because MoCo refused to moderate, there will likely be sweeping powers provided to parents. Well done MoCo radicals.

The only radicals are the far right operatives, like yourself. If you wanted to keep your kids stupid why did you move to a blue state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!!

We are here precisely because MoCo went too far (as have other districts), and because MoCo refused to moderate, there will likely be sweeping powers provided to parents. Well done MoCo radicals.

The only radicals are the far right operatives, like yourself. If you wanted to keep your kids stupid why did you move to a blue state?

You do realize you are on the 10% side of a 90/10 issue nationally, right? There are plenty of liberal parents who aren’t happy with MoCo and other school board radicalism.

[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.

+10000

Signed, former Biden voter

[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.

There are many sides here. And some of us might not like a few of the books but agree that your “side” that won the most recent election is the most dangerous of all. Especially to our children.

You’re here frothing at the mouth about a few books while the POTUS you elected is dismantling the government, tearing down our democracy so he can be a dictator. Ignoring due process, having people kidnapped off the streets. Dismantling all the things that keep our food, water, and drugs safe. Dismantling research into diseases and treatments. How is that good for kids? You and your “side” are the real devils who thrive on hate and ignorance and lies.

So shove your sanctimony where the sun dont shine. You are not righteous. You are the worst danger of all. You are traitors to our country who voted for all this destruction. Those books won’t matter if your kid is dead from measles or poisoned food.

[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 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.

There are many sides here. And some of us might not like a few of the books but agree that your “side” that won the most recent election is the most dangerous of all. Especially to our children.

You’re here frothing at the mouth about a few books while the POTUS you elected is dismantling the government, tearing down our democracy so he can be a dictator. Ignoring due process, having people kidnapped off the streets. Dismantling all the things that keep our food, water, and drugs safe. Dismantling research into diseases and treatments. How is that good for kids? You and your “side” are the real devils who thrive on hate and ignorance and lies.

So shove your sanctimony where the sun dont shine. You are not righteous. You are the worst danger of all. You are traitors to our country who voted for all this destruction. Those books won’t matter if your kid is dead from measles or poisoned food.

Ma’am, this thread is about a Supreme Court case.