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:

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.

Fascinating. You don’t seem to understand how Supreme Court jurisprudence even works. Do you understand there is a Supreme Court case at issue here, that is going to be ruled on and will have significant impact, no matter what else is going on? It is not clear to me that you understand the basics here.

Absolutely understand it all. It's fascinating that the Smug Insufferable Parents don't seem to be able to understand a comment aimed at a single PP who made a sweeping generalization about the many different parents with many different nuanced viewpoints about this case. There is not ONE Trump-supporting opposition to these books. It's far more complicated than that. And to equate feelings about this single topic with wholesale support of the Trump administration reign of terror on our freedom of speech and democracy is just wrong. Do you disagree. Are you saying all people who are against these books support all of Trump's policies? Really?

Wait, what? Aren’t you the person posting unrelated and unfocused rants because people are discussing a Supreme Court case and you don’t like that?

Of course not everyone who supports the plaintiffs in this case support Trump. Probably most people in the US support the plaintiffs, it polling is any indication, and they certainly don’t all support Trump (in fact most don’t). I’m genuinely confused by your posts. You don’t seem to understand that this is a Supreme Court case that is going to have a ruling, regardless of anything else going on, and you don’t want people to discuss it. It is very weird.

I think you must be confusing multiple posters. I object to one PP who said her "side", meaning Trump supporters". I don't think this issues is about Trump supporters. I never said this issue can't be discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Not sure that time, money, and race are "social constructs."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Not sure that time, money, and race are "social constructs."

Chromosomes are not social constructs. Time is not a social construct. Race is not a social construct. Money is a means of exchange established by governments.

Sounds like the PP's 14 year old needs additional education, or if s/he believes that these things are social constructs, then s/he has received a poor and highly-biased education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Not sure that time, money, and race are "social constructs."

Chromosomes are not social constructs. Time is not a social construct. Race is not a social construct. Money is a means of exchange established by governments.

Sounds like the PP's 14 year old needs additional education, or if s/he believes that these things are social constructs, then s/he has received a poor and highly-biased education.

Plus a million

[Anonymous]

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.

I think few people would deny the existance of gay people.

The contraversy isn't that gay people exist, its wether or not they're an appropriate topic for younger children, or at what age should they be discussed, as well as wether or not it is appropriate to normalize their behaviour, wether or not it is appropriate to celebrate their behaviour and wether or not parents have the right to object to contraversal teachings.

Obviously not everyone agrees otherwise SCOTUS wouldn't be taking this up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Not sure that time, money, and race are "social constructs."

Chromosomes are not social constructs. Time is not a social construct. Race is not a social construct. Money is a means of exchange established by governments.

Sounds like the PP's 14 year old needs additional education, or if s/he believes that these things are social constructs, then s/he has received a poor and highly-biased education.

Race actually is a social construct. There is very little genetic basis for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Not sure that time, money, and race are "social constructs."

Chromosomes are not social constructs. Time is not a social construct. Race is not a social construct. Money is a means of exchange established by governments.

Sounds like the PP's 14 year old needs additional education, or if s/he believes that these things are social constructs, then s/he has received a poor and highly-biased education.

Race actually is a social construct. There is very little genetic basis for it.

If race is a purely social construct, then that completely undermines DEI.

[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.

I think few people would deny the existance of gay people.

The contraversy isn't that gay people exist, its wether or not they're an appropriate topic for younger children, or at what age should they be discussed, as well as wether or not it is appropriate to normalize their behaviour, wether or not it is appropriate to celebrate their behaviour and wether or not parents have the right to object to contraversal teachings.

Obviously not everyone agrees otherwise SCOTUS wouldn't be taking this up.

You could say things about single mothers, interracial marriage, etc. Should parents be able to opt out of books that include a character that is a single mother married to, or if a white woman is married to a black man? There are people who would opt out of these books for religious reasons as well. Are you also ok with this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Not sure that time, money, and race are "social constructs."

Chromosomes are not social constructs. Time is not a social construct. Race is not a social construct. Money is a means of exchange established by governments.

Sounds like the PP's 14 year old needs additional education, or if s/he believes that these things are social constructs, then s/he has received a poor and highly-biased education.

Race actually is a social construct. There is very little genetic basis for it.

If race is a purely social construct, then that completely undermines DEI.

I would say the most accurate term would be geographic ancestry, it typically correlates with racial indentity, but not always.

[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.

I think few people would deny the existance of gay people.

The contraversy isn't that gay people exist, its wether or not they're an appropriate topic for younger children, or at what age should they be discussed, as well as wether or not it is appropriate to normalize their behaviour, wether or not it is appropriate to celebrate their behaviour and wether or not parents have the right to object to contraversal teachings.

Obviously not everyone agrees otherwise SCOTUS wouldn't be taking this up.

You could say things about single mothers, interracial marriage, etc. Should parents be able to opt out of books that include a character that is a single mother married to, or if a white woman is married to a black man? There are people who would opt out of these books for religious reasons as well. Are you also ok with this?

As has been pointed out over and over, the Maryland lesson plans aren’t simply about the existence of gay people. It’s promoting gender ideology and the idea of sex as a “guess”’made at birth and other highly debatable concepts.

When have you ever heard of a parent asking to opt out of an intermarriage book? Why would we suddenly have an epidemic of parents doing this if Maryland simply returned to the opt out they offered just a little while ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

We're talking about 1st graders, not 14 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Not sure that time, money, and race are "social constructs."

Chromosomes are not social constructs. Time is not a social construct. Race is not a social construct. Money is a means of exchange established by governments.

Sounds like the PP's 14 year old needs additional education, or if s/he believes that these things are social constructs, then s/he has received a poor and highly-biased education.

Race actually is a social construct. There is very little genetic basis for it.

Except when DNA evidence is involved in court.

Several prescription medications bear FDA-approved, race-specific labels that suggest certain racial or ethnic groups should receive lower doses or may be at greater risk of side effects. And guidelines to physicians, which are endorsed by professional societies, sometimes recommend prescribing certain drugs differently based on race or ethnicity.

Race-based labels exist for drugs to treat heart disease, various cancers, epilepsy, tuberculosis and other diseases because different groups metabolize differently. This is actually a problem when performing drug efficacy studies because not all racial groups are tested due to aversions from historical testing.

[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.

I think few people would deny the existance of gay people.

The contraversy isn't that gay people exist, its wether or not they're an appropriate topic for younger children, or at what age should they be discussed, as well as wether or not it is appropriate to normalize their behaviour, wether or not it is appropriate to celebrate their behaviour and wether or not parents have the right to object to contraversal teachings.

Obviously not everyone agrees otherwise SCOTUS wouldn't be taking this up.

You could say things about single mothers, interracial marriage, etc. Should parents be able to opt out of books that include a character that is a single mother married to, or if a white woman is married to a black man? There are people who would opt out of these books for religious reasons as well. Are you also ok with this?

I don't really have a problem with parents opting out of anything though I recognize it may be disruptive with respect to how classrooms are currently run. . Eventually in some sci-fi future it's all going to be computer based learning anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Not sure that time, money, and race are "social constructs."

Chromosomes are not social constructs. Time is not a social construct. Race is not a social construct. Money is a means of exchange established by governments.

Sounds like the PP's 14 year old needs additional education, or if s/he believes that these things are social constructs, then s/he has received a poor and highly-biased education.

Seriously. I’d be embarrassed to admit my kid was this dumb.