Can you please describe what LGBTQIA+ curriculum is? It sounds a bit like you're upset that some children's books have characters with two mommies, two daddies, etc. and I would like to better understand what precisely you're upset about.
Can you please describe what your issue is with drag queens reading stories to children?
1. The LGBTQIA curriculum was a class being used to educate children on gender politics instead of actual useful skills.
2. The books went way too far. It wasn't as simple as there being 2 mom's or 2 dad's. It specifically talks about sexual acts or children performing sexual acts on each other. This was so bad that a Mayor of a town with these books told the school board to resign or face criminal charges for CP.
3. Drag Queens aren't meant for kids. Grown men wearing sexual outfits.
Some of these involve the drag queens dancing sexually like strippers.
1. The LGBTQIA curriculum was a class being used to educate children on gender politics instead of actual useful skills.
2. The books went way too far. It wasn't as simple as there being 2 mom's or 2 dad's. It specifically talks about sexual acts or children performing sexual acts on each other. This was so bad that a Mayor of a town with these books told the school board to resign or face criminal charges for CP.
3. Drag Queens aren't meant for kids. Grown men wearing sexual outfits.
Some of these involve the drag queens dancing sexually like strippers.
You also have a search engine right ?
I am sure you are very capable to do some research yourself.
Besides, I am not sure if I am allowed to post urls here.
You also have a search engine right ?
I am sure you are very capable to do some research yourself.
Besides, I am not sure if I am allowed to post urls here.
That's not how debate works. If you make a claim then you have to be able to back it up with credible sources. You don't expect someone challenging you to do that. If you fail to provide credible sources then it's just a random Internet claim and as such, has neither credibility or value.
That's not how debate works. If you make a claim then you have to be able to back it up with credible sources. You don't expect someone challenging you to do that. If you fail to provide credible sources then it's just a random Internet claim and as such, has neither credibility or value.
For the point about the sexual books being put in schools for children has been covered many times by a man called "Rev. John Amanchukwu" a black youth pastor known for confronting school boards.
You will have no hard time finding videos of him being kicked out of meetings for being inappropriate despite him reading what their school shares.
Secondly, about the story of the Mayor.
A mayor in ohio called Craig Shubert threatend the school board of education with possible criminal charges.
There are also videos of drag Queens doing exactly what I accuse them of. Where children were urged by parents to give money by putting it in their clothes. I believe even school talent shows showed drag Queens.
I simply disagree with this because drag queens are not made for kids.
Click the 🔗 symbol on the menu banner directly above the text box. Paste the URL where it says URL and type words such as "BBC Source Here" where it says text.
For the point about the sexual books being put in schools for children has been covered many times by a man called "Rev. John Amanchukwu" a black youth pastor known for confronting school boards.
You will have no hard time finding videos of him being kicked out of meetings for being inappropriate despite him reading what their school shares.
Secondly, about the story of the Mayor.
A mayor in ohio called Craig Shubert threatend the school board of education with possible criminal charges.
There are also videos of drag Queens doing exactly what I accuse them of. Where children were urged by parents to give money by putting it in their clothes. I believe even school talent shows showed drag Queens.
I simply disagree with this because drag queens are not made for kids.
Rev. John Amanchukwu? He's a far right christian extremist that supports the removal of abortion and other human rights. He's not a credible source at all. The books he calls sexual are probably harmless. This is not a credible source to back your argument at all.
Now let's look at Craig Shubert. He was forced to resign as Mayor because he tried to link ice fishing with prostitution. The man's an idiot and again not a credible source to back up your argument.
Videos of drag queens drag queening it up? Shocker lol. I'd have seen them as some sort of funny clown at a young age. But again you're making claims without sources and that's not a credible counter argument.
Rev. John Amanchukwu? He's a far right christian extremist that supports the removal of abortion and other human rights. He's not a credible source at all. The books he calls sexual are probably harmless. This is not a credible source to back your argument at all.
Now let's look at Craig Shubert. He was forced to resign as Mayor because he tried to link ice fishing with prostitution. The man's an idiot and again not a credible source to back up your argument.
Videos of drag queens drag queening it up? Shocker lol. I'd have seen them as some sort of funny clown at a young age. But again you're making claims without sources and that's not a credible counter argument.
You are getting upset that a Christian believes in Christian beliefs that abortion is murder hence doesn't want abortion to be allowed?
You need to stop throwing labels around like 'far right', 'extremist' etc.
He is simply a christian. Nothing more or less.
I am going to stop arguing with you because you clearly can't accept sources despite them being very clear and justified. The youth pastor literally reads the material so you can HEAR how bad it is.
The Mayor isn't any less credible. Because I used him as arguing example of people being fed up with this stuff in schools. Just because he later made some weird connection between other stuff doesn't make it any less justified.
You are lucky I have no option to fucking block you.
You haven't provided any CREDIBLE sources to back your claims. This is a repeated failing of yours. You can't make random claims to back up what are clearly your own prejudices without expecting them to be challenged and I will continue to do so.
And of course, when you're called on this you resort to argumentum ad hominem. Oh and this time abusive language. Yet you expect to be taken seriously. Think about that.
Try raising threads on normal subjects for a change rather than pushing your right wing extreme religious agenda along with the prejudices it promotes.
You haven't provided any CREDIBLE sources to back your claims. This is a repeated failing of yours. You can't make random claims to back up what are clearly your own prejudices without expecting them to be challenged and I will continue to do so.
And of course, when you're called on this you resort to argumentum ad hominem. Oh and this time abusive language. Yet you expect to be taken seriously. Think about that.
Try raising threads on normal subjects for a change rather than pushing your right wing extreme religious agenda along with the prejudices it promotes.
Nothing far right or extreme about it.
Pretty discriminatory of you to call me that simply for having religion.
I will simply ignore you as I post what I want that is deemed suitable.
At the very least, I have proof that I tried to have common ground with you. But you are too childish to even agree to disagree on some things.
The majority of the threads you start have a clear agenda that comes from your extreme and conservative religious views. If you push these agendas that promote prejudice against gays, trans and other minority groups then you must expect to be challenged on them and I'm quite happy to do so. If you think that's "childish" then I suggest you take a hard look at your own posts. You continue to make assertions and fail to provide adequate sources and argument to back them up, then you resort to argumentum ad hominem which, by the way, is usually the last resort of the debater that cannot out think their challenger.
If you want to engage on common ground then pick some normal subjects that don't push your religious agenda down peoples' throats and I'll be happy to. Otherwise I'll be continuing to challenge them.
The majority of the threads you start have a clear agenda that comes from your extreme and conservative religious views. If you push these agendas that promote prejudice against gays, trans and other minority groups then you must expect to be challenged on them and I'm quite happy to do so. If you think that's "childish" then I suggest you take a hard look at your own posts. You continue to make assertions and fail to provide adequate sources and argument to back them up, then you resort to argumentum ad hominem which, by the way, is usually the last resort of the debater that cannot out think their challenger.
If you want to engage on common ground then pick some normal subjects that don't push your religious agenda down peoples' throats and I'll be happy to. Otherwise I'll be continuing to challenge them.
As some of you may be aware, people are trying to push for sexuality to be a subject in kindergarten and whatever the American equivalent of primary school is.
Some teachers have already started teaching "LGBTQIA" curriculum.
This is in place of teaching other more important lessons.
Of course this is mostly in America and I don't believe it has happened in my country yet. Hopefully it stays away from my local schools.
Do you believe that sexuality is suitable for children to learn?
If so, how much should they be allowed to know?
Understanding and acknowledging different sexual orientations among kids isn't a bad idea given how these orientations are more visible in today's society. But having a whole curriculum solely dedicated to it might seem a bit much since the basics can be covered pretty succinctly like how some people like the same gender, opposite gender, or both, and how some folks identify with a different gender than what they were assigned at birth.
To me, it's more about showing kids that they'll encounter all kinds of people in the world—different looks, preferences, behaviors, you name it. It's a bit like how we teach them not to treat others differently because of skin color, disabilities, or economic differences. It's all about fostering an understanding and respect for diversity in people, helping them grow up without unfair judgments.
The Mayor isn't any less credible. Because I used him as arguing example of people being fed up with this stuff in schools. Just because he later made some weird connection between other stuff doesn't make it any less justified.
2. The books went way too far. It wasn't as simple as there being 2 mom's or 2 dad's. It specifically talks about sexual acts or children performing sexual acts on each other. This was so bad that a Mayor of a town with these books told the school board to resign or face criminal charges for CP.
..isn't quite accurate and, importantly, this was to high school seniors - I believe that's around 17/18 years old - which isn't quite how you were pitching the debate:
As some of you may be aware, people are trying to push for sexuality to be a subject in kindergarten and whatever the American equivalent of primary school is.
"Hudson High School Principal Brian Wilch said parents notified him about inappropriate writing prompts being used in a book called "642 Things to Write About" provided to high school seniors who are taking a college credit course called Writing in the Liberal Arts II. The course is offered in association with Hiram College, but is taught by a Hudson teacher in the Hudson High School building.
At the Hudson Board of Education meeting, Wilch said he and his team had apologized to parents and removed the books from the course.
At that same meeting, many parents complained about the prompts, calling them "disgusting," and saying they were examples of "grooming" and "sexualizing" students.
Examples of prompts: "write a sex scene you wouldn't show your mom," and another which said "rewrite the sex scene from above into one that you'd let your mom read."
Mayor Craig Shubert addressed the board and called on them to resign or possibly face criminal charges for distributing what he said was "essentially …child pornography."
In summary, some idiot decided to write something inappropriate in a book but it isn't pornography, the police declined to prosecute on the basis that it's not criminal, the youngest age of the reader was 17 (and it wasn't a book of sexually explicit content), and it's pretty clear that the mayor went OTT.
The pastor. Can't find much on him. His own preaching/sermon videos aren't going to be conclusive on anything. It's like me posting a video and saying "all straight people really want to do the dirty with the same sex and I've seen it everywhere".
Your sources don't support the argument you were making which, if I'm not mistaken, was that kids from about 3 - 10 are being taught about different sexualities in an inappropriate way and that it's replacing education that they should be receiving.
-
Drag Queen Story Hour - yeah I don't know how I feel about that. I've not been part of it myself but I've heard mixed comments. I don't believe it's sexualised and I guess it's no different from being read to by Santa or an Elf as long as it's kept appropriate.
-
To answer the question posed, I think kids should know about different sexualities not least because they'll see other kids with 2 male parents or 2 female parents and kids need to be aware that it's a thing but that's knowing about relationships, not about sex. If they're not aware of it, then the children of same-sex parents are going to be bullied. They don't need to know about which bits go where and I'd be surprised if there's any evidence that the mechanics of sex are being taught to kids of that age - at least at the lower end of the age bracket.
Not for this, that or the other, but the age of nursery kids is from 0 to maximum 5 years old. And I could be hugely mistaken, but kids at those age don't know how to read. As far as I'm aware, the teaching of reading starts from the age of 6. In schools.
