• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The pathological anti-LGBTQ hate from social conservatives

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
52,421
Reaction score
37,032
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
When I look and see the hate speech used against transgender people, it feels like deja vu. "There's something wrong with them," "they're 'grooming kids," "stop with the agenda," and other disgusting lies have all been used against gay people.

Now that gays have a lot more rights, one would think that social conservatives would get over themselves, grow up, and learn to accept. But that is not what social cons do. They simply find a new target. Their current favorites to hate are transgender and nonbinary people, using the same hate speech they did against gays with only the slightest variation in tactics.

Worse, the social cons won't even admit when they are wrong. Their lies against gay people were debunked over and over and over again, yet they continued to push them up until the point where it became socially unacceptable to do so, and you still, even now, hear those old lies from time to time. Then the social cons switch targets, to trans people, falsely accusing them of stalking kids in public restrooms, so we got a whole wave of laws on that. There was no evidence that even suggested this was a problem! So what did the social cons do? Instead of folding their losing hand, they targeted trans women athletes, and now, their favorite target, schools again. They want to deny children their RIGHT to learn in a healthy, compassionate, age-appropriate manner that LGBTQ people are real and valid. There is no more danger to a child learning about two men who love each other than learning about a woman who loves a man, and it is pure pathology to suggest otherwise. These social cons have never cared and will never care about the additional dangers that trans and nonbinary people are forced to go through all the time. If they did care, then they would cease being social cons. As an ex-social-con myself, I would know.
 

HikerGuy83

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Messages
7,202
Reaction score
2,921
Location
Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Bless your heart, snowflake

Even Bill Mahar disagrees with you.

Children have no rights to learn.

Unbelievable.
 

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
52,421
Reaction score
37,032
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Bless your heart, snowflake

Even Bill Mahar disagrees with you.

Children have no rights to learn.

Unbelievable.

That's the best counterargument you've got? Okay.
 

Lisa

salem ac leporem
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
26,450
Reaction score
16,562
Location
Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Bless your heart, snowflake

Even Bill Mahar disagrees with you.

Children have no rights to learn.

Unbelievable.
Please explain your statement that children have no right to learn?
 

MrNiceGuy

Symbiotic Pnemonic
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
7,515
Reaction score
3,291
Location
The Twilight Zone
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Worse, the social cons won't even admit when they are wrong. Their lies against gay people were debunked over and over and over again, yet they continued to push them up until the point where it became socially unacceptable to do so, and you still, even now, hear those old lies from time to time. Then the social cons switch targets, to trans people, falsely accusing them of stalking kids in public restrooms, so we got a whole wave of laws on that. There was no evidence that even suggested this was a problem! So what did the social cons do? Instead of folding their losing hand, they targeted trans women athletes, and now, their favorite target, schools again. They want to deny children their RIGHT to learn in a healthy, compassionate, age-appropriate manner that LGBTQ people are real and valid. There is no more danger to a child learning about two men who love each other than learning about a woman who loves a man, and it is pure pathology to suggest otherwise. These social cons have never cared and will never care about the additional dangers that trans and nonbinary people are forced to go through all the time. If they did care, then they would cease being social cons. As an ex-social-con myself, I would know.

Thee issue of transwomen in the ladies' room was not about accusing them of being abusers to any greater degree than any non-trans. The point was that people who aren't really trans could claim to be trans for that purpose, and that the criminal males who would try to do something with kids would take advantage of that. And, that's not a myth. It's not a majority behavior, but then again neither are most crimes. Most crimes deal with behaviors that are very uncommon. Murder is not common, &the vast majority of people wouldn't murder people. To want to have a law that addresses a low percentage criminal behavior is not wrong. It's normal.

Regarding transwomen competing against biological females in sports, the issue is real, and males have a significant advantage over females. It's not an irrational concern. It's legitimate, and as a father of two young daughters, I reject the notion that my concern for my daughters' futures is either a pretext for bigotry or a function of hatred of trans people.

Schools - again, as a parent of 2 young children, I have an understanding of what "age appropriate" means, and there is no "age appropriate" discussion of sex in the kindergarten, first, second or third grade classroom, and that includes any sexual orientation (not just homosexuality, but heterosexuality), and the issue of "gender identity" is likewise not an appropriate topic for my first grader or my third grader. I would vote that the curriculum not include any such topics.

With respect to the curriculum in Kindergarten, neither of my daughters had classroom discussions with the teacher, or a lesson presented, involving sex, orientation or gender identity. Further, the kindergarten teachers are generally not qualified to "teach" these subjects. Moreover, what an activist wants "taught" to K-3 kids is far different than what I would want taught.

The main thrust of K-3 education is reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, simple history, simple science, some foreign language (in the US, generally Spanish), art, music and physical education. There is no reason to be talking to a 1st, 2nd or 3rd grader about genderqeer identities, drag queens, or suggesting that if they like to try on mom's shoes they might really be a girl, not a boy. And in order to discuss "sexual orientation" the teacher would have to let the kids know what "sex" is and what it means to have sex, and then the issue of which way a person is "oriented" could take place. These are complex topics, fraught with emotion and psychological implications. It isn't "phobia" to be concerned about what the 2d grade teacher might want to teach. The LGBT lobby should also be concerned - bc it might not be blue-haired gender studies minor doing the teaching - it might be the devout, orthodox, religious teacher who doesn't agree with any of the LGBT lobby's ideas. Are you going to not only demand that this stuff be "taught," but then also control what exactly is taught in the classroom so it aligns with the LGBT lobby's views? If so, why does that faction get a say about what is taught and when, but the rest of us don't?
 

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
52,421
Reaction score
37,032
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Thee issue of transwomen in the ladies' room was not about accusing them of being abusers to any greater degree than any non-trans. The point was that people who aren't really trans could claim to be trans for that purpose, and that the criminal males who would try to do something with kids would take advantage of that. And, that's not a myth. It's not a majority behavior, but then again neither are most crimes. Most crimes deal with behaviors that are very uncommon. Murder is not common, &the vast majority of people wouldn't murder people. To want to have a law that addresses a low percentage criminal behavior is not wrong. It's normal.

Regarding transwomen competing against biological females in sports, the issue is real, and males have a significant advantage over females. It's not an irrational concern. It's legitimate, and as a father of two young daughters, I reject the notion that my concern for my daughters' futures is either a pretext for bigotry or a function of hatred of trans people.

Schools - again, as a parent of 2 young children, I have an understanding of what "age appropriate" means, and there is no "age appropriate" discussion of sex in the kindergarten, first, second or third grade classroom, and that includes any sexual orientation (not just homosexuality, but heterosexuality), and the issue of "gender identity" is likewise not an appropriate topic for my first grader or my third grader. I would vote that the curriculum not include any such topics.

With respect to the curriculum in Kindergarten, neither of my daughters had classroom discussions with the teacher, or a lesson presented, involving sex, orientation or gender identity. Further, the kindergarten teachers are generally not qualified to "teach" these subjects. Moreover, what an activist wants "taught" to K-3 kids is far different than what I would want taught.

The main thrust of K-3 education is reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, simple history, simple science, some foreign language (in the US, generally Spanish), art, music and physical education. There is no reason to be talking to a 1st, 2nd or 3rd grader about genderqeer identities, drag queens, or suggesting that if they like to try on mom's shoes they might really be a girl, not a boy. And in order to discuss "sexual orientation" the teacher would have to let the kids know what "sex" is and what it means to have sex, and then the issue of which way a person is "oriented" could take place. These are complex topics, fraught with emotion and psychological implications. It isn't "phobia" to be concerned about what the 2d grade teacher might want to teach. The LGBT lobby should also be concerned - bc it might not be blue-haired gender studies minor doing the teaching - it might be the devout, orthodox, religious teacher who doesn't agree with any of the LGBT lobby's ideas. Are you going to not only demand that this stuff be "taught," but then also control what exactly is taught in the classroom so it aligns with the LGBT lobby's views? If so, why does that faction get a say about what is taught and when, but the rest of us don't?

Explain to me why I should read that transphobic wall of text.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
69,186
Reaction score
16,098
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I watched an episode of family Guy last night and I saw this sequence and it summed up the way we treat LGBT people and I don't like it.



Do whatever you want all the time because saying anything but that you will be called transphobic there is a point where we as people need to stop caring about this stupid name calling crap.
 

Lisa

salem ac leporem
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
26,450
Reaction score
16,562
Location
Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I watched an episode of family Guy last night and I saw this sequence and it summed up the way we treat LGBT people and I don't like it.



Do whatever you want all the time because saying anything but that you will be called transphobic there is a point where we as people need to stop caring about this stupid name calling crap.

My irony meter just exploded. You love to toss it out but when someone turns that same crap on you you are outraged and demand that it be stopped because your feelin's got hurt. Stop doing it to others and allowing vulnerable minorities to be attacked.
iu
 

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
43,116
Reaction score
17,473
When I look and see the hate speech used against transgender people, it feels like deja vu. "There's something wrong with them," "they're 'grooming kids," "stop with the agenda," and other disgusting lies have all been used against gay people.

Now that gays have a lot more rights, one would think that social conservatives would get over themselves, grow up, and learn to accept. But that is not what social cons do. They simply find a new target. Their current favorites to hate are transgender and nonbinary people, using the same hate speech they did against gays with only the slightest variation in tactics.

Worse, the social cons won't even admit when they are wrong. Their lies against gay people were debunked over and over and over again, yet they continued to push them up until the point where it became socially unacceptable to do so, and you still, even now, hear those old lies from time to time. Then the social cons switch targets, to trans people, falsely accusing them of stalking kids in public restrooms, so we got a whole wave of laws on that. There was no evidence that even suggested this was a problem! So what did the social cons do? Instead of folding their losing hand, they targeted trans women athletes, and now, their favorite target, schools again. They want to deny children their RIGHT to learn in a healthy, compassionate, age-appropriate manner that LGBTQ people are real and valid. There is no more danger to a child learning about two men who love each other than learning about a woman who loves a man, and it is pure pathology to suggest otherwise. These social cons have never cared and will never care about the additional dangers that trans and nonbinary people are forced to go through all the time. If they did care, then they would cease being social cons. As an ex-social-con myself, I would know.

I would think that as gays have won all kinds of deserved rights they would not overreach and hate all those that helped impower them. 😉
 

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
43,116
Reaction score
17,473
Thee issue of transwomen in the ladies' room was not about accusing them of being abusers to any greater degree than any non-trans. The point was that people who aren't really trans could claim to be trans for that purpose, and that the criminal males who would try to do something with kids would take advantage of that. And, that's not a myth. It's not a majority behavior, but then again neither are most crimes. Most crimes deal with behaviors that are very uncommon. Murder is not common, &the vast majority of people wouldn't murder people. To want to have a law that addresses a low percentage criminal behavior is not wrong. It's normal.

Regarding transwomen competing against biological females in sports, the issue is real, and males have a significant advantage over females. It's not an irrational concern. It's legitimate, and as a father of two young daughters, I reject the notion that my concern for my daughters' futures is either a pretext for bigotry or a function of hatred of trans people.

Schools - again, as a parent of 2 young children, I have an understanding of what "age appropriate" means, and there is no "age appropriate" discussion of sex in the kindergarten, first, second or third grade classroom, and that includes any sexual orientation (not just homosexuality, but heterosexuality), and the issue of "gender identity" is likewise not an appropriate topic for my first grader or my third grader. I would vote that the curriculum not include any such topics.

With respect to the curriculum in Kindergarten, neither of my daughters had classroom discussions with the teacher, or a lesson presented, involving sex, orientation or gender identity. Further, the kindergarten teachers are generally not qualified to "teach" these subjects. Moreover, what an activist wants "taught" to K-3 kids is far different than what I would want taught.

The main thrust of K-3 education is reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, simple history, simple science, some foreign language (in the US, generally Spanish), art, music and physical education. There is no reason to be talking to a 1st, 2nd or 3rd grader about genderqeer identities, drag queens, or suggesting that if they like to try on mom's shoes they might really be a girl, not a boy. And in order to discuss "sexual orientation" the teacher would have to let the kids know what "sex" is and what it means to have sex, and then the issue of which way a person is "oriented" could take place. These are complex topics, fraught with emotion and psychological implications. It isn't "phobia" to be concerned about what the 2d grade teacher might want to teach. The LGBT lobby should also be concerned - bc it might not be blue-haired gender studies minor doing the teaching - it might be the devout, orthodox, religious teacher who doesn't agree with any of the LGBT lobby's ideas. Are you going to not only demand that this stuff be "taught," but then also control what exactly is taught in the classroom so it aligns with the LGBT lobby's views? If so, why does that faction get a say about what is taught and when, but the rest of us don't?

Your first paragraph is ridiculous. I have two daughters, for the record.
 

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
43,116
Reaction score
17,473
Explain to me why I should read that transphobic wall of text.
Because someone does not agree with you does not make them trasphobic.

You do this over and over.

Yes, we some here that truly are ignorant transphobics but you go way way beyond to the detriment of your cause.
 

Court Jester

Proud Systemic Anti-Wokist Paleocon Jedi Master
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
11,731
Reaction score
5,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When I look and see the hate speech used against transgender people, it feels like deja vu. "There's something wrong with them," "they're 'grooming kids," "stop with the agenda," and other disgusting lies have all been used against gay people.

At some point in the last 20 years or so, you libs came up with new definition of "hate/hate speech". NONE of the statements you used are hate. "Hate" would be something like: "we need to murder gay people"--- that would be hate speech. A person voicing an opinion on what they believe is unnatural aberrant sexual behavior, is just that, and opinion, no "hate" necessarily applies. To you "hate" is any disagreement, and that is just not logical.


Now that gays have a lot more rights, one would think that social conservatives would get over themselves, grow up, and learn to accept.

Homosexuals have always been around. I am in my 60s and I have NEVER known anyone to say that homosexuals deserved fewer civil rights. The right to buy or rent where they wish to, the right to work, the right to every protection of the constitution; that has always existed as far as I have seen.

Are you hung up on opposition to the right to redefine the meaning of marriage? That isn't hate to have a difference of opinion, and how are civil unions not enough without forcing somebody else to use the term "marriage" which has ALWAYS been defined as a man and woman?

But that is not what social cons do. They simply find a new target. Their current favorites to hate are transgender and nonbinary people, using the same hate speech they did against gays with only the slightest variation in tactics.

Don't blame us because you wanted to add Qs, Ss(x2), Ts, and all other kinds of nonsense onto lesbian, gay, and bi. YOU are the ones changing the goal posts and standards every other month, so what do you expect when it comes to pushback? I know gay men, and lesbian women, who are no comfortable with the whole "trans" and "gender" confusion malarkey. Too far is too far.

Worse, the social cons won't even admit when they are wrong. Their lies against gay people were debunked over and over and over again, yet they continued to push them up until the point where it became socially unacceptable to do so, and you still, even now, hear those old lies from time to time. Then the social cons switch targets, to trans people, falsely accusing them of stalking kids in public restrooms, so we got a whole wave of laws on that. There was no evidence that even suggested this was a problem! So what did the social cons do? Instead of folding their losing hand, they targeted trans women athletes, and now, their favorite target, schools again. They want to deny children their RIGHT to learn in a healthy, compassionate, age-appropriate manner that LGBTQ people are real and valid. There is no more danger to a child learning about two men who love each other than learning about a woman who loves a man, and it is pure pathology to suggest otherwise. These social cons have never cared and will never care about the additional dangers that trans and nonbinary people are forced to go through all the time. If they did care, then they would cease being social cons. As an ex-social-con myself, I would know.
[/QUOTE]

Men and women are DIFFERENT and should have different restroom facilities. Trans is NOT biological. Psychological---- well, maybe. But no need to reinvent nature to appease the less than a fraction of 1% who quite frankly are likely to be suffering from some mental issues. THAT isn't fair to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, to constantly make everything about trans and gender confused people.
 

Gatsby

Neoliberal Globalist Shill
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
4,802
Reaction score
4,573
Location
Cambridge, MA / Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The LGB movement would be wise to distance themselves from the T, as they are starting to do in England. Or just drop the T from the acronym entirely. There's no reason that a civil rights movement for gay people needs to associate itself with an obnoxious crew of people behaving badly and demanding bizarre things like allowing men to cheat at sports, housing male rapists in female prisons, or giving sex hormones to children. Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual isn't even the same *kind* of thing as being trans.

The way that the LGB movement gained wide acceptance was twofold: 1) Using the media to showcase people who presented a normal face to the world, like Ellen DeGeneres and Will & Grace; 2) Framing their desired policy changes in the language of equality and civil rights. They weren't demanding society do anything other than treat them like everyone else.

In contrast, the trans movement has lagged way behind in terms of social acceptance, because the face they present to the world is Lia Thomas, Drag Queen Story Hour, and internet trolls threatening to rape and kill witches TERFs. And because their desired policy changes are less about civil rights than about forcing all of society to accept their narrative about who they are.
 

VySky

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
22,800
Reaction score
8,073
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
When I look and see the hate speech used against transgender people, it feels like deja vu. "There's something wrong with them," "they're 'grooming kids," "stop with the agenda," and other disgusting lies have all been used against gay people.

Now that gays have a lot more rights, one would think that social conservatives would get over themselves, grow up, and learn to accept. But that is not what social cons do. They simply find a new target. Their current favorites to hate are transgender and nonbinary people, using the same hate speech they did against gays with only the slightest variation in tactics.

Worse, the social cons won't even admit when they are wrong. Their lies against gay people were debunked over and over and over again, yet they continued to push them up until the point where it became socially unacceptable to do so, and you still, even now, hear those old lies from time to time. Then the social cons switch targets, to trans people, falsely accusing them of stalking kids in public restrooms, so we got a whole wave of laws on that. There was no evidence that even suggested this was a problem! So what did the social cons do? Instead of folding their losing hand, they targeted trans women athletes, and now, their favorite target, schools again. They want to deny children their RIGHT to learn in a healthy, compassionate, age-appropriate manner that LGBTQ people are real and valid. There is no more danger to a child learning about two men who love each other than learning about a woman who loves a man, and it is pure pathology to suggest otherwise. These social cons have never cared and will never care about the additional dangers that trans and nonbinary people are forced to go through all the time. If they did care, then they would cease being social cons. As an ex-social-con myself, I would know.
That doesn’t sound very factual.

Do better.
 

VySky

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
22,800
Reaction score
8,073
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Explain to me why I should read that transphobic wall of text.
Sounds like the Yale yahoo’s

He read your wall of hot garbage yet you lack the curtesy to read his.

Sounds fair.
 

VySky

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
22,800
Reaction score
8,073
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's up to you. You raised a bunch of issues, and I addressed them.

The post isn't transphobic, by the way. You'd know that if you read it.
I picture the shouting Yale students. They don’t want to hear it. Darkness hates light. It exposes them.
 

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
5,603
Reaction score
3,226
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Bless your heart, snowflake

Even Bill Mahar disagrees with you.

Children have no rights to learn.

Unbelievable.
The whole concept of public education is fundamentally about a child's right to have access to learning, regardless of their or their parents circumstance or choice. Thats why we insist that parents either send their kids to school or provide them with home schooling. The only real question becomes how broad should the required curriculum be and what should it include. I can't imagine many topics dealing with their bodies, their health, or their minds and their health that I don't think kids should learn about and I do not distinguish between sex, and nutrition or the circulatory system, or what happens inside the human brain, or gender dysphoria it's symptoms and treatment. 'Age appropriate education' to me, means get the job done before they graduate with that high school diploma.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
69,186
Reaction score
16,098
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
My irony meter just exploded. You love to toss it out but when someone turns that same crap on you you are outraged and demand that it be stopped because your feelin's got hurt. Stop doing it to others and allowing vulnerable minorities to be attacked.
iu
The point is they're not being attacked. You want them to be a victim so you can feel like a hero.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
7,475
Reaction score
6,203
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Thee issue of transwomen in the ladies' room was not about accusing them of being abusers to any greater degree than any non-trans. The point was that people who aren't really trans could claim to be trans for that purpose, and that the criminal males who would try to do something with kids would take advantage of that. And, that's not a myth. It's not a majority behavior, but then again neither are most crimes.
The issue of transwomen in the ladies' room doesn't introduce anything new. Pedophiles could still dress up like women and take advantage whether the restroom is trans-friendly or not.

Regarding transwomen competing against biological females in sports, the issue is real, and males have a significant advantage over females. It's not an irrational concern. It's legitimate, and as a father of two young daughters, I reject the notion that my concern for my daughters' futures is either a pretext for bigotry or a function of hatred of trans people.
I agree with this, it seems really selfish on the part of the trans athlete. Sports organizations do have hormone threshold requirements but I still don't think it's fair.

Schools - again, as a parent of 2 young children, I have an understanding of what "age appropriate" means, and there is no "age appropriate" discussion of sex in the kindergarten, first, second or third grade classroom, and that includes any sexual orientation (not just homosexuality, but heterosexuality), and the issue of "gender identity" is likewise not an appropriate topic for my first grader or my third grader. I would vote that the curriculum not include any such topics.

With respect to the curriculum in Kindergarten, neither of my daughters had classroom discussions with the teacher, or a lesson presented, involving sex, orientation or gender identity. Further, the kindergarten teachers are generally not qualified to "teach" these subjects. Moreover, what an activist wants "taught" to K-3 kids is far different than what I would want taught.

The main thrust of K-3 education is reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, simple history, simple science, some foreign language (in the US, generally Spanish), art, music and physical education. There is no reason to be talking to a 1st, 2nd or 3rd grader about genderqeer identities, drag queens, or suggesting that if they like to try on mom's shoes they might really be a girl, not a boy. And in order to discuss "sexual orientation" the teacher would have to let the kids know what "sex" is and what it means to have sex, and then the issue of which way a person is "oriented" could take place. These are complex topics, fraught with emotion and psychological implications. It isn't "phobia" to be concerned about what the 2d grade teacher might want to teach. The LGBT lobby should also be concerned - bc it might not be blue-haired gender studies minor doing the teaching - it might be the devout, orthodox, religious teacher who doesn't agree with any of the LGBT lobby's ideas. Are you going to not only demand that this stuff be "taught," but then also control what exactly is taught in the classroom so it aligns with the LGBT lobby's views? If so, why does that faction get a say about what is taught and when, but the rest of us don't?
Well, it seems pretty mundane to me if they only talk about basics like some kids have two dads or two moms. There's no need to go into any details of sexual activity though. Sometimes it seems like parents fear that their kids might be shown hardcore gay porn in the classroom or something.

We wouldn't need any of this "gay agenda" or "trans agenda" stuff if it weren't for social ostracization caused by bigotry of people who think their opinions and policies belong in the bedrooms of consenting adults. Social acceptance is the goal, not conversion.
 
Top Bottom