Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So no saying Bride and Groom because that teaches sexual orientation, right?

Bride and groom is normative.

it also is a sexual orientation I don't want my children exposed to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So no saying Bride and Groom because that teaches sexual orientation, right?

Bride and groom is normative.

So is being right handed shall we forbid left handedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

What on God‘s green earth are you talking about? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with love and marriage. There’s no need to “teach” sexual orientation. Just live your damn life!

The case is about whether parents should be able to opt out of teachers reading books to their students that feature LGBTQ characters. Ones that fall in love and get married.

We should also opt out of teachers reading books about hetero couples getting married.

Or germ theory. Or interracial couples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So no saying Bride and Groom because that teaches sexual orientation, right?

Bride and groom is normative.

So is being right handed shall we forbid left handedness.

The left handed should have their left hand tied behind their back until they can learn to be normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So no saying Bride and Groom because that teaches sexual orientation, right?

Bride and groom is normative.

So is being right handed shall we forbid left handedness.

The left handed should have their left hand tied behind their back until they can learn to be normal.

No more characters in wheel chairs because that is not "normative".

[Anonymous]

If my religion preaches tolerance, this decision would appear to defy my religion. So my religion is opposed to removing the books from schools. How do we weigh different religions against each other?

[Anonymous]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

The parents that demanded the school abide by their religion? They aren’t keeping their kids home. That’s the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

No no the SC says that my kid can opt out of anything I find religiously objectionable. That includes female teachers. The school must make a male-only space for mg child.

[Anonymous]

Why is so much being deleted from this thread? Like direct quotes from the dissent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

What on God‘s green earth are you talking about? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with love and marriage. There’s no need to “teach” sexual orientation. Just live your damn life!

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

What on God‘s green earth are you talking about? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with love and marriage. There’s no need to “teach” sexual orientation. Just live your damn life!

+100

Lolol “sexual orientation has nothing to do with love and marriage”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

What on God‘s green earth are you talking about? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with love and marriage. There’s no need to “teach” sexual orientation. Just live your damn life!

+100

How on earth do you think a groom and a groom teaches sexual orientation and a bride and a groom does not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

We don't push 1 month of regular marriage celebration like MCPS does for LGBTQ. That's simply counter productive.

This issue has gone extreme in our county and MCPS going till suprement court is a wake up call that let;s not county be highjacked by nut cases. That's how some one like Trump gets elected.

Regular marriage was never illegal. Why would it need to have its own month?

Wow. Who taught you? Marriage between races was absolutely illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

The parents that demanded the school abide by their religion? They aren’t keeping their kids home. That’s the point.

The Supreme Court on June 27 sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read, another move that favors claims of religious discrimination over other values, like gay rights.