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:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

But you are currently allowed to opt out your child from sex education based on religious beliefs and to opt out of other things based on religious beliefs. This is no different. That being said...IMHO the opt-out should only be allowed for K-3 grades and should be solely focused on books related to gender ideology. There is a huge difference between books on different family dynamics (two moms/dads, step-mom/dad, etc.) and books teaching gender ideology. Huge difference.

No. Religious values don’t end after 3rd grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

But you are currently allowed to opt out your child from sex education based on religious beliefs and to opt out of other things based on religious beliefs. This is no different. That being said...IMHO the opt-out should only be allowed for K-3 grades and should be solely focused on books related to gender ideology. There is a huge difference between books on different family dynamics (two moms/dads, step-mom/dad, etc.) and books teaching gender ideology. Huge difference.

No. Religious values don’t end after 3rd grade.

But after third or fourth grade, you do start learning about major world religions. This is no different IMO. You can teach gender ideology as a belief system just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

But you are currently allowed to opt out your child from sex education based on religious beliefs and to opt out of other things based on religious beliefs. This is no different. That being said...IMHO the opt-out should only be allowed for K-3 grades and should be solely focused on books related to gender ideology. There is a huge difference between books on different family dynamics (two moms/dads, step-mom/dad, etc.) and books teaching gender ideology. Huge difference.

No. Religious values don’t end after 3rd grade.

But after third or fourth grade, you do start learning about major world religions. This is no different IMO. You can teach gender ideology as a belief system just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

+100 Spot On. I have no issue teaching gender ideology as a belief system, just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

But you are currently allowed to opt out your child from sex education based on religious beliefs and to opt out of other things based on religious beliefs. This is no different. That being said...IMHO the opt-out should only be allowed for K-3 grades and should be solely focused on books related to gender ideology. There is a huge difference between books on different family dynamics (two moms/dads, step-mom/dad, etc.) and books teaching gender ideology. Huge difference.

No. Religious values don’t end after 3rd grade.

But after third or fourth grade, you do start learning about major world religions. This is no different IMO. You can teach gender ideology as a belief system just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

+100 Spot On. I have no issue teaching gender ideology as a belief system, just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

Maryland isn’t teaching it as a belief system but as fact. If they want to have a world religion and philosophy class and present it, fine. But that’s not how this is being introduced to kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

But you are currently allowed to opt out your child from sex education based on religious beliefs and to opt out of other things based on religious beliefs. This is no different. That being said...IMHO the opt-out should only be allowed for K-3 grades and should be solely focused on books related to gender ideology. There is a huge difference between books on different family dynamics (two moms/dads, step-mom/dad, etc.) and books teaching gender ideology. Huge difference.

No. Religious values don’t end after 3rd grade.

But after third or fourth grade, you do start learning about major world religions. This is no different IMO. You can teach gender ideology as a belief system just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

+100 Spot On. I have no issue teaching gender ideology as a belief system, just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

Maryland isn’t teaching it as a belief system but as fact. If they want to have a world religion and philosophy class and present it, fine. But that’s not how this is being introduced to kids.

Right, and that’s the problem and why there is a litigation to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the lines have irreparably been blurred by extremists on both sides.

I respect LGBTQ+...always have. If two women or two men want to get married...no problem. I respect same-sex marriage even though deep down I don't necessarily believe in it. I don't have to believe in something to respect it. Same thing with gender identity-- I respect those who have a gender identity that is outside the norm. I respect it even though I don't believe in it. Again, I don't have to believe in something to respect it. There is nothing wrong with the "you do you" mentality...as long as there is no harm done.

The issue here is the all-or-nothing extreme mentality. There is a huge difference between a book about two moms or two dads versus a book about gender identity and gender ideology. Huge.

I'm not going to read LGBTQ+ books to my grandchildren that focus on gender ideology when they are in K-3. I don't believe gender identity-focused LGBTQ+ books belong in K-3 at all...except for the very basic ones that simply address that not all families have a mom/dad -- some have a step-mom, step-dad, two moms, two dads or even just a grandmother. But I honestly would not label these books as LGBTQ+ per se.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

But you are currently allowed to opt out your child from sex education based on religious beliefs and to opt out of other things based on religious beliefs. This is no different. That being said...IMHO the opt-out should only be allowed for K-3 grades and should be solely focused on books related to gender ideology. There is a huge difference between books on different family dynamics (two moms/dads, step-mom/dad, etc.) and books teaching gender ideology. Huge difference.

No. Religious values don’t end after 3rd grade.

But after third or fourth grade, you do start learning about major world religions. This is no different IMO. You can teach gender ideology as a belief system just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

+100 Spot On. I have no issue teaching gender ideology as a belief system, just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

Maryland isn’t teaching it as a belief system but as fact. If they want to have a world religion and philosophy class and present it, fine. But that’s not how this is being introduced to kids.

I'm the one who also posted that it only belongs in higher grades AND is taught as a belief system...if taught as fact, I agree it should not be taught at all. As previous poster noted...after third or fourth grade, you do start learning about major world religions....and this should be taught as a religious belief and definitely NOT as fact.

I do wonder about how it's being taught in MOCO. My DD teaches 2nd grade in FFX County and they do not have books on gender ideology in lower grades at least.

[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:

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.

Of course. And the people who are so worked up about it are missing the real problems happening right in front of them.

You are not funny.

And you can’t keep on topic. Take your generalized hysteria elsewhere. This case is going to be ruled on, regardless of whatever else is going on, and it is because radicals in MoCo could not be reasonable.

Really. You're gonna use the old sexist trope "hysteria". FFS. What Trump is doing will have far greater impacts than these stupid books. You indignant parents really are puffed up with your self-importance and blinded by it. Wake TF up.

DP. Your false dichotomy isn't working. Opting out of the sexualized trash that MoCo is trying to pass off as literature isn't stopping anyone from seeing what Trump is doing. Nor is forcing this weirdo agenda on kids stopping Trump. One has not a thing to do with the other, as you know.

You notice that one of the books in question is Pride Puppy and people can’t point to how it sexualizes anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

Well, your fundamentalist religious beliefs that a gender identity apart from physical sex exists, that children can baptize themselves into a new gender identity, and that children can make life altering medical choices based on that faith-based gender identity are currently being taught in public schools, so we have a problem indeed with religious beliefs in public schools.

Almost nobody objects to books featuring two dads or two moms. If that was all the books contained, this case wouldn’t exist. But the books went much further.

The better analogy is this: When children’s books include a woman in a hijab as a character, almost nobody cares. Many of those exist already. But if an obligatory book for young children is something called “Maryam’s First Hijab,” celebrates the day a child dons her first hijab, and has a word finder asking kids to find items associated with Islam as part of the English curriculum, there would justifiably be a lawsuit. Or, imagine “Josephine’s First Holy Communion” being taught in pre-K. That is essentially what has happened here. These MoCo books crossed the line into a faith-based belief system, and therefore came into direct conflict with other faith-based belief systems. That’s the source of the conflict. It’s a matter of conflicting faiths, and none belong in public school.

^^All of this. The nutjobs you're arguing against already know this difference though. They're mad because they had gotten accustomed to using gay acceptance as cover for their indoctrination of children into fetishes and kinks. They'll die mad their agenda has failed after being allowed to groom kids for years.

I don’t agree with the idea they’re trying to push fetishes and kinks, but I do agree the activists are deliberately trying to indoctrinate kids.

They truly believe gender ideology is fact, and they also believe LBGTQ kids will get bullied and/or hurt themselves unless everyone gets on board. This is a large reason MoCo removed the opt outs. They didn’t want LBGTQ kids to think so many people disagreed with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

But you are currently allowed to opt out your child from sex education based on religious beliefs and to opt out of other things based on religious beliefs. This is no different. That being said...IMHO the opt-out should only be allowed for K-3 grades and should be solely focused on books related to gender ideology. There is a huge difference between books on different family dynamics (two moms/dads, step-mom/dad, etc.) and books teaching gender ideology. Huge difference.

No. Religious values don’t end after 3rd grade.

But after third or fourth grade, you do start learning about major world religions. This is no different IMO. You can teach gender ideology as a belief system just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

+100 Spot On. I have no issue teaching gender ideology as a belief system, just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

Wtf does gender ideology even mean. I have yet to hear a coherent definition of what this is from anyone that complains about it. However, the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars removed a list of banned words from government documents due to “gender ideology”. Even accountants and actuaries that have nothing to do with DEI are spending a significant amount of on this wild goose chase. The gender ideology EO was also written so poorly that it froze over 2 trillion dollars or government funding before agencies got clarification on what it meant. This really reminds me of the obsession about critical race theory, the people complaining about it can't clearly define what the even think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

But you are currently allowed to opt out your child from sex education based on religious beliefs and to opt out of other things based on religious beliefs. This is no different. That being said...IMHO the opt-out should only be allowed for K-3 grades and should be solely focused on books related to gender ideology. There is a huge difference between books on different family dynamics (two moms/dads, step-mom/dad, etc.) and books teaching gender ideology. Huge difference.

No. Religious values don’t end after 3rd grade.

But after third or fourth grade, you do start learning about major world religions. This is no different IMO. You can teach gender ideology as a belief system just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

+100 Spot On. I have no issue teaching gender ideology as a belief system, just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

Wtf does gender ideology even mean. I have yet to hear a coherent definition of what this is from anyone that complains about it. However, the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars removed a list of banned words from government documents due to “gender ideology”. Even accountants and actuaries that have nothing to do with DEI are spending a significant amount of on this wild goose chase. The gender ideology EO was also written so poorly that it froze over 2 trillion dollars or government funding before agencies got clarification on what it meant. This really reminds me of the obsession about critical race theory, the people complaining about it can't clearly define what the even think it is.

Gender ideology is the belief system that one has a gender identity, in essence a gender soul, that exists apart from one’s physical sex. The gender soul or identity can go through a spiritual transmutation in which one’s original gender is elevated to a different gender, in a baptism of sorts where the person is reborn into a new identity. Under this belief system, gender identity is more important than physical sex, and therefore adherents believe that where there are conflicting rights, gender-based rights are more important than sex-based rights.

Adherents of gender ideology believe that it is possible for children to be “born in the wrong body,” meaning a child’s self-perceived gender soul does not match the secondary sex characteristics of their physical body. Believers typically support the use of various physical and medical interventions to force the physical body to conform to the perception of the gender soul. These can be minimal (hair, nails, etc.) or extensive (surgeries for adults, puberty blockers for children, cross-sex hormones for both).

There are various philosophers that have written treatises that form the basis of modern gender theory and ideology. Judith Butler is probably the most famous, but there are others such as Andrea Long Chu.

This is obviously just a high-level summary, but in general, this is what the gender faithful believe.

[Anonymous]

I'm all for gay rights and I appreciate the intentions of them, but some of those books are just weird for kids. Like, you don't normally read about love stories in grade school, regardless of sexual orientation.

[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:

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.

Of course. And the people who are so worked up about it are missing the real problems happening right in front of them.

You are not funny.

And you can’t keep on topic. Take your generalized hysteria elsewhere. This case is going to be ruled on, regardless of whatever else is going on, and it is because radicals in MoCo could not be reasonable.

Really. You're gonna use the old sexist trope "hysteria". FFS. What Trump is doing will have far greater impacts than these stupid books. You indignant parents really are puffed up with your self-importance and blinded by it. Wake TF up.

DP. Your false dichotomy isn't working. Opting out of the sexualized trash that MoCo is trying to pass off as literature isn't stopping anyone from seeing what Trump is doing. Nor is forcing this weirdo agenda on kids stopping Trump. One has not a thing to do with the other, as you know.

You notice that one of the books in question is Pride Puppy and people can’t point to how it sexualizes anything.

It glorifies and popularizes being LGBTQ+...making it the "popular" thing to do and making it appear to be the "norm". Not saying it's not "normal" but it is not and should not be popularized as being the "norm". No different than vaping companies accused (rightfully so) of marketing them toward minors with flavors like rainbow cotton candy and grape bubblegum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

But you are currently allowed to opt out your child from sex education based on religious beliefs and to opt out of other things based on religious beliefs. This is no different. That being said...IMHO the opt-out should only be allowed for K-3 grades and should be solely focused on books related to gender ideology. There is a huge difference between books on different family dynamics (two moms/dads, step-mom/dad, etc.) and books teaching gender ideology. Huge difference.

No. Religious values don’t end after 3rd grade.

But after third or fourth grade, you do start learning about major world religions. This is no different IMO. You can teach gender ideology as a belief system just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

+100 Spot On. I have no issue teaching gender ideology as a belief system, just like Christianity, Islam, etc. are taught as belief systems.

Wtf does gender ideology even mean. I have yet to hear a coherent definition of what this is from anyone that complains about it. However, the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars removed a list of banned words from government documents due to “gender ideology”. Even accountants and actuaries that have nothing to do with DEI are spending a significant amount of on this wild goose chase. The gender ideology EO was also written so poorly that it froze over 2 trillion dollars or government funding before agencies got clarification on what it meant. This really reminds me of the obsession about critical race theory, the people complaining about it can't clearly define what the even think it is.

Gender ideology refers to a set of quasi religious beliefs or perspectives that challenge traditional binary notions of gender, emphasizing that gender is a social construct rather than strictly tied to biological sex. It often includes ideas like gender being fluid, non-binary identities, and the decoupling of gender roles from biological determinism. The term is sometimes used critically by opponents who view it as promoting subjective or ideologically driven concepts over objective reality.

[Anonymous]

My own 14 yo child pointed out to me that nobody challenges all the other social constructs such as time, money, or race. Why is gender so different?