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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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/[/quote]

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

+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.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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?

[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Ma’am, this thread is about a Supreme Court case. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics