So if I get a bunch of parents to protest that they want to take children out of school during term time to avoided hiked up holiday prices should the school bow down to pressure?
If it works for Muslims why not others?

I used to agree with Stirlingbon this but I sympathise with children raised in same sex households, with no say in the matter and vulnerable to being weird and freaks. No ‘treat others...’ talks will address any bullying, and no kid deserves that because something that is actually unnatural has been decided by their parents or not even their biological parent(s). It’s becoming a complex and confusing world and innocent kids don’t deserve any of it.

COYP

There’s a slight difference between a heterosexual mixed face couple falling in love and having children and a same sex couple deciding to have kids and looking for sperm donors or surrogate mothers or whatever gay men do. It’s so different and unnatural, no matter how much people say they can raise a child just as well, if not better, which can be true.

COYP

Rather obviously a socially conservative family would be role modelling the male/female structure. The very fact this sexual 'identity politics' has now been aimed at very young children means that religious and just socially conservative families will respond by enforcement.

It doesn't work it just creates unnecessary discord. Now in a sense, this doesn't bother me that much because of previously stated reasons but apparently for people like yourself that's not the intent.

I'm not on here arguing that this subject can't be broached. I think I've made it quite clear that age matters as does social conservatism.....something the people who passed this law didn't give a damn about.

If the programme was how you suggest here, a sensible chat about how humans are and their differences and not an entire programme called 'no outsiders' with books with pictures portraying alternative families and sexualities then I would regard it differently....but five would still be too young.

This whole section is hyperbolic, 'tore them away'...when children change school several times in their life. Indeed, children are pulled from classes all the time and don't attend for many different reasons. No one needs to make a big deal of it.

Again, I raise the reality that in religious families this approach is going to cause far more discord and upset to gay children at an age where they shouldn't be dealing with it.

There isn't only one way to think in a healthy way regarding homosexuality. I regard most families as being far better methods with its emotional ties within them than the politically correct and 30 -1 nature of a class.

Again, I'll repeat there are many homosexuals who wouldn't agree with this programme at this age so there is no consensus....only consensus from activists and virtue signalers.

Oh dear.

I've noticed this in your posts. You start to get emotional and then the rational and intelligently argued element is replaced by increasing hyperbole and weak deductions.

I don't know if what I believe is a total rejection....if I had to revisit it I'd probably make the adoption aspect from 16 onwards.

'Indoctrination' comes from everybody.

All societies are a mixture of libertarianism and authoritarianism just differing on the extent and areas. So again, it's a non point. While we both are probably similar on free speech, here you have been arguing for the mandating of this programme that I don't...Yet you correctly pointed out that in others areas I would mandate.....So like I say you are no different to me you just have your mixture of authoritarianism/freedom in different areas.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 May 2019 3.40pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

A groups of people whose religious views have resulted in many deaths to the type of individuals and families they're protesting abroad, and are very full on at home should not hold sway on whether basic lessons on societal realities of the country they live in take place.

You put your long term staunch belief on how we shouldn't listen to Muslims religious sensibilities and objections on ice because you agree with them on this one particular issue. It's farcical to suddenly adopt the opposite worldview about making compromises and how we should seek to serve the local Muslim community because it might 'make things worse' if we don't, just because it intersects with your stance on one particular argument.

If people want to homeschool, go for it but we all learned things at school that we disagreed with. In fact, it's part of learning, as parental adjustments and other input factor in too throughout life. Realities present themselves regardless, and so a parental view is often in response to external information.

Do you want tearful leftie parents removing their kids from school when the 'ills of the empire' aren't covered in history.. or when someones 'pronoun' isn't respected... Or maybe you recognise the snowflake moves of others, just not your own. Perhaps you wish to solely appeal to the 'sensitivities' of the Muslim community in history lessons in Birmingham too? I mean, it's got to be 'local' and sensitive to their cultural and conservative religious background now right according to you? I doubt they want to learn about British stuff, our military and the like. There might be a few white kids in class slightly confused by not ever being factored in, but I mean who cares about them, let's keep it Muslim and traditional in line with your newly minted approach! Things get confusing when staunch beliefs are in fact situational 'how do I get my way here' ad hoc statements. The disposable contact lense that is opinion based on feels.

So you know all this to be true do you. You trust the state entirely do you.

I don't, I've seen the state lie directly. I've seen you manipulate the truth here and twist the truth to suit the narrative you want to present.

For example, with the above. In this case I condemned the behaviour of this couple and I expressed concern for that child in their care.

Where is your mention of that? Nowhere.....It shows you lack of care for the truth of a situation. You are the kind of person who doesn't present the truth.

You just present my concerns about the future of that child within state care....which I know something about and you present my concern that the child will be indoctrinated against its own parents.....that's one mixed up future. I lament the whole situation because whatever happens to that child the likely outcome is a s***e sandwich.

But instead that's not what you took from that exchange, instead you took what you wanted out of it and presented BS.....true to form.

You have no concerns about twisting truth to suit your own pathetic beta male or female narrative.....reasonably intelligent but pathetic.

'No matter their sexuality'. So sorry, Word Up but when it comes to a child being reared every child has an intrinsic right to a mother and a father.

It may not always be possible because real life is full of broken families.....but it's the ideal and up until the hyper advance of social liberalism on steroids it was fully recognised as the ideal.

You are a part of society which thinks it's ok to lie to children and present other alternatives as equal.

I regard you as the same as the others....a collaborator to a soft form of child abuse for that percentage of children who will grow up with resentment and feeling cheated.....gay, straight or frigging whatever.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 May 2019 11.15pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)