schmendeler said:
"you don't get to teach kids things" isn't a Christian belief that the rest of us have to observe.
AGC said:schmendeler said:
"you don't get to teach kids things" isn't a Christian belief that the rest of us have to observe.
Right, only humanist atheists get to say that. Full bore with transitioning elementary school students and high fives all around!
Edit: notice how quickly the atheist jumps from, 'you can believe what you like,' to, 'who cares what you believe, we're not going to listen to you.'
AGC said:
I posted specific examples. Teaching queer theory to elementary schoolers in public ed is another example of infringement. You said in another thread you're fine with it so why's my statement offensive?
schmendeler said:AGC said:schmendeler said:
"you don't get to teach kids things" isn't a Christian belief that the rest of us have to observe.
Right, only humanist atheists get to say that. Full bore with transitioning elementary school students and high fives all around!
Edit: notice how quickly the atheist jumps from, 'you can believe what you like,' to, 'who cares what you believe, we're not going to listen to you.'
It's telling that you think those two statements are contradictory.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
I posted specific examples. Teaching queer theory to elementary schoolers in public ed is another example of infringement. You said in another thread you're fine with it so why's my statement offensive?
I don't understand this. Teaching a child that a thing exists is an infringement to those who disagree with the morality of the thing?
What is it that you think I'm fine with? I am fine with a public school teaching children (of appropriate age) what homosexuality is and that it exists. Or that some people identify as queer and trans. I'm fine with a book or story containing an LGBTQ character. I am also fine with a school teaching that Christians exists and that they generally believe 'x'. Or having a book containing a Christian character or a reference to God.
I don't think your statement is offensive. I think it is a mischaracterization of what I believe. I believe that Christians have every right to participate openly and public in society. And so do Muslims and Jews and atheists and queers and polygamists and all the people you disagree with. I believe that a position that public education should be scrubbed of reference to any of those ideas would be hypocritical in light of what you are asking for - that Christians be permitted to practice in public.
On a side note - Given your obvious distaste for imposition of morality, can I infer that you are therefore staunchly opposed to the OPs position? Or at least that you are in favor of legal rights for polygamists?
Quote:
We don't introduce children to every behavior on the human spectrum simply because it exists; it must demonstrate it is good or beneficial
larry culpepper said:
I will always believe in one's right to freely practice their religion, or to not practice any religion. So long as they aren't trying to force their beliefs on others, or use the power of the state to favor or enforce their religion.
But those in power consistently show they are unwilling to do that.
AGC said:
You're conflating things. I pointed out that atheists don't actually believe what they say when they claim to support our ability to believe something. They think belief is something that happens in your head, not something that you live out in everyday life. We can't participate fully in society that is openly hostile to us practicing that belief. Sex and gender is part of that. Prayer is part of that. Administering our workplace according to our belief is part of that. Educating our children is part of that.
I don't believe in multicultural societies as lasting cohesive things. I don't believe in pluralism. It's a temporary power struggle, not a lasting social cohesion. Atheism is an evolutionary dead end anyways.
The 'gays exist' line is tired. We don't introduce children to every behavior on the human spectrum simply because it exists; it must demonstrate it is good or beneficial. Further that's totally different from teachers and schools advising and supporting children transitioning with no accountability. It's simply irrelevant and unnecessary to the general purpose of education. You might as well argue that kids need to learn how to use a smartphone early on or they never will. They'll figure it out just fine without having one.
Sapper Redux said:Quote:
We don't introduce children to every behavior on the human spectrum simply because it exists; it must demonstrate it is good or beneficial
Two issues: 1. Bull***** Kids are introduced all the time to things that are of questionable value. Your issue is an inability to indoctrinate kids to your specific liking.
2. Who is deciding what is "good or beneficial"?
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
You're conflating things. I pointed out that atheists don't actually believe what they say when they claim to support our ability to believe something. They think belief is something that happens in your head, not something that you live out in everyday life. We can't participate fully in society that is openly hostile to us practicing that belief. Sex and gender is part of that. Prayer is part of that. Administering our workplace according to our belief is part of that. Educating our children is part of that.
I don't believe in multicultural societies as lasting cohesive things. I don't believe in pluralism. It's a temporary power struggle, not a lasting social cohesion. Atheism is an evolutionary dead end anyways.
The 'gays exist' line is tired. We don't introduce children to every behavior on the human spectrum simply because it exists; it must demonstrate it is good or beneficial. Further that's totally different from teachers and schools advising and supporting children transitioning with no accountability. It's simply irrelevant and unnecessary to the general purpose of education. You might as well argue that kids need to learn how to use a smartphone early on or they never will. They'll figure it out just fine without having one.
Very well then. Let me amend my previous statements.
I support your right, and the right of Christians, to hold their own beliefs in their own head. AND I support your right, and the right of Christians, to live out those beliefs in their life and publicly up to the point where doing so begins to infringe on other people's rights.
If freedom for you to practice your religion must involve the sacrifice of other people's rights, then I guess I don't support your freedom of religion as you see it. What is the right term here for someone who complains of secular infringement on their rights, but claims that it is their right to infringe on the rights of secularists?
There are human behaviors far far less common then homosexuality that are discussed in school without objection. The objection to LGBTQ issues in the classroom has nothing to do with relevancy and everything to do with privileging a religious moral position. I've also never said teachers should advise and support kids to transition. I would be against that. That is a strawman.
Um yes that's how thought works.AGC said:
Again it's all because reasons.
Quote:
You keep defaulting to laws rather than engaging with how they interfere with religious practice.
Quote:
You don't have a right to someone else's labor for a cake - this isn't the 1950s south where a black man can't get a hotel room at the only place in town.
You have yet to demonstrate any significant portion of this that's actually targeting your religion rather than referring to situations where you are asking for government financial sponsorship or violating broad laws against discrimination.Quote:
You're also ignoring the intentional malice found that is present in secular government.
Quote:
I know the pretension of a persecution complex really plays to your atheist audience here
School curriculum should be about teaching facts to kids, the morality presented should be limited to behavior norms between students and teachers. Does you religion saying something isn't true mean we can't teach it in public school? Remember this is a government funded operation, what give you special privileges?Quote:
but a Christian parent with kids in public school will likely have anti Christian teaching presented and encouraged. Preferencing one morality over another is replacement, not removal of privilege.
I want to believe that people of different values, beliefs, cultures, languages, and identities can coexist peacefully under a very limited set of social standards that apply to everyone coupled with a lot of freedom. The older I get, the more that looks like a naive fantasy. Most people just aren't wired to live and let live. That goes for everything from national politics to the local HOA.Quote:
I don't believe in multicultural societies as lasting cohesive things. I don't believe in pluralism. It's a temporary power struggle, not a lasting social cohesion
AGC said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
We don't introduce children to every behavior on the human spectrum simply because it exists; it must demonstrate it is good or beneficial
Two issues: 1. Bull***** Kids are introduced all the time to things that are of questionable value. Your issue is an inability to indoctrinate kids to your specific liking.
2. Who is deciding what is "good or beneficial"?
1. I totally agree that kids are introduced to things of questionable value. Saying, 'x, y, and z exist in the world so kids should know about it' is lazy argumentation. For example murderers exist but I ain't showing elementary school kids an actual murder and saying you might want to express yourself as this when you're older so we'll help you transition to a sociopath. This is a parenting question, not an education question.
2. That's the question right? There's a lot in schools that isn't necessary so let's keep it out. Then you as a parent can decide that. Everyone can practice their belief as they see fit without things like school being a battle ground.
I'm not sure I'd use Rome as an exemplar. Rome assimilated or dominated.Sapper Redux said:
Rome as a plural, multicultural empire lasted for centuries. So did Persia.
Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
We don't introduce children to every behavior on the human spectrum simply because it exists; it must demonstrate it is good or beneficial
Two issues: 1. Bull***** Kids are introduced all the time to things that are of questionable value. Your issue is an inability to indoctrinate kids to your specific liking.
2. Who is deciding what is "good or beneficial"?
1. I totally agree that kids are introduced to things of questionable value. Saying, 'x, y, and z exist in the world so kids should know about it' is lazy argumentation. For example murderers exist but I ain't showing elementary school kids an actual murder and saying you might want to express yourself as this when you're older so we'll help you transition to a sociopath. This is a parenting question, not an education question.
2. That's the question right? There's a lot in schools that isn't necessary so let's keep it out. Then you as a parent can decide that. Everyone can practice their belief as they see fit without things like school being a battle ground.
1. Are you comparing love between consenting adults with sociopathic murderers? Can't see the problems with that comparison? Kids are exposed to death and even violent death very early in media and in life. It's a subject to be discussed within certain boundaries depending on their maturity level. No one is saying teach preschoolers how sex is performed by LGBT couples, but rather that it's not wrong to teach them there are different kinds of people and families and that's okay.
2. Withholding discussion is a form of power and a form of othering those who you do not believe are proper members of society. Saying schools should have nothing to say about the existence and experience of gay people as regular human beings is absolutely a way of making them appear as lesser or disordered and thus worthy of shame.
ramblin_ag02 said:I'm not sure I'd use Rome as an exemplar. Rome assimilated or dominated.Sapper Redux said:
Rome as a plural, multicultural empire lasted for centuries. So did Persia.
I'd buy Persia, but that would turn into a long discussion. Honestly that whole area had been beaten into submission by the Assyrians' reign of terror for thousands of years. So it's not like it took a lot of effort to keep the population in line. We can see from Alexander's easy success that the Persian military wasn't much to brag about by that point, and by extension the populace must have been pretty docile to remain so easily governed.
Why should a government funded school teach sexuality at any level? The public school finds itself all too often teaching a one sided philosophical world view.Quote:
What is it that you think I'm fine with? I am fine with a public school teaching children (of appropriate age) what homosexuality is and that it exists. Or that some people identify as queer and trans. I'm fine with a book or story containing an LGBTQ character. I am also fine with a school teaching that Christians exists and that they generally believe 'x'. Or having a book containing a Christian character or a reference to God.
AGC said:
Why are other people's beliefs a boundary to my rights? What makes my rights inferior? This is the question you aren't answering. That's why I cite public accommodation: the necessity of it has shriveled up and just about blown away. There are millions of florists, millions of cake bakers, etc. There are few barriers to entry anymore save for social media and extremely large companies (which is why these cases never involve them). If I started a Christian printing company and didn't sell to atheists who cares? Hop online and get it done another way probably for less.
Looking at schools let's ask the question: do they spend as much time teaching any religion as they do focusing on secular humanist morality? There are people who would encourage transitioning children even in high school. Is the school prepared to help transition them from atheist to Muslim? You frame this as a removal of privilege without acknowledging that it now privileges secular humanism. You treat your sexual ethic as the null hypothesis and don't teach anyone else's. You've replaced one privileged belief system with another and see nothing wrong with it because it's yours.
Side note: I think public accommodation is the way to treat social media privileging political viewpoints.
ramblin_ag02 said:I'm not sure I'd use Rome as an exemplar. Rome assimilated or dominated.Sapper Redux said:
Rome as a plural, multicultural empire lasted for centuries. So did Persia.
I'd buy Persia, but that would turn into a long discussion. Honestly that whole area had been beaten into submission by the Assyrians' reign of terror for thousands of years. So it's not like it took a lot of effort to keep the population in line. We can see from Alexander's easy success that the Persian military wasn't much to brag about by that point, and by extension the populace must have been pretty docile to remain so easily governed.
ramblin_ag02 said:I want to believe that people of different values, beliefs, cultures, languages, and identities can coexist peacefully under a very limited set of social standards that apply to everyone coupled with a lot of freedom. The older I get, the more that looks like a naive fantasy. Most people just aren't wired to live and let live. That goes for everything from national politics to the local HOA.Quote:
I don't believe in multicultural societies as lasting cohesive things. I don't believe in pluralism. It's a temporary power struggle, not a lasting social cohesion
DirtDiver said:Why should a government funded school teach sexuality at any level? The public school finds itself all too often teaching a one sided philosophical world view.Quote:
What is it that you think I'm fine with? I am fine with a public school teaching children (of appropriate age) what homosexuality is and that it exists. Or that some people identify as queer and trans. I'm fine with a book or story containing an LGBTQ character. I am also fine with a school teaching that Christians exists and that they generally believe 'x'. Or having a book containing a Christian character or a reference to God.
example: Philosophy of science (not scientific fact) on the origin of the universe. A one-sided philosophy of science without the other view represented.
Do you think that during the sexuality talk they would invite a conservative Christian pastor to speak to the biblical views on sin as it relates to sexuality? I don't think so. Given that, the student's receive a one sided secular world view. This is indoctrination vs education.
AGC said:ramblin_ag02 said:I'm not sure I'd use Rome as an exemplar. Rome assimilated or dominated.Sapper Redux said:
Rome as a plural, multicultural empire lasted for centuries. So did Persia.
I'd buy Persia, but that would turn into a long discussion. Honestly that whole area had been beaten into submission by the Assyrians' reign of terror for thousands of years. So it's not like it took a lot of effort to keep the population in line. We can see from Alexander's easy success that the Persian military wasn't much to brag about by that point, and by extension the populace must have been pretty docile to remain so easily governed.
Did the Persians take cultural elites and educate them before returning them like the Babylonians? Or disperse conquered peoples to other lands? I'm a little light on that history.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Why are other people's beliefs a boundary to my rights? What makes my rights inferior? This is the question you aren't answering. That's why I cite public accommodation: the necessity of it has shriveled up and just about blown away. There are millions of florists, millions of cake bakers, etc. There are few barriers to entry anymore save for social media and extremely large companies (which is why these cases never involve them). If I started a Christian printing company and didn't sell to atheists who cares? Hop online and get it done another way probably for less.
Looking at schools let's ask the question: do they spend as much time teaching any religion as they do focusing on secular humanist morality? There are people who would encourage transitioning children even in high school. Is the school prepared to help transition them from atheist to Muslim? You frame this as a removal of privilege without acknowledging that it now privileges secular humanism. You treat your sexual ethic as the null hypothesis and don't teach anyone else's. You've replaced one privileged belief system with another and see nothing wrong with it because it's yours.
Side note: I think public accommodation is the way to treat social media privileging political viewpoints.
Hey everyone, AGC hates all non-white and non-Christians. He wants to murder all gay people and install Christian Sharia Law in America.
I see we are back to the making stuff up about me game. Literally nothing you just said applies to what I post on this forum or what I believe. Are you drunk? Do you not read my posts?
I'll back out of this thread back and forth with you. Its just not productive. . . . You are debating these issues with someone else, but certainly not with me.
AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
We don't introduce children to every behavior on the human spectrum simply because it exists; it must demonstrate it is good or beneficial
Two issues: 1. Bull***** Kids are introduced all the time to things that are of questionable value. Your issue is an inability to indoctrinate kids to your specific liking.
2. Who is deciding what is "good or beneficial"?
1. I totally agree that kids are introduced to things of questionable value. Saying, 'x, y, and z exist in the world so kids should know about it' is lazy argumentation. For example murderers exist but I ain't showing elementary school kids an actual murder and saying you might want to express yourself as this when you're older so we'll help you transition to a sociopath. This is a parenting question, not an education question.
2. That's the question right? There's a lot in schools that isn't necessary so let's keep it out. Then you as a parent can decide that. Everyone can practice their belief as they see fit without things like school being a battle ground.
1. Are you comparing love between consenting adults with sociopathic murderers? Can't see the problems with that comparison? Kids are exposed to death and even violent death very early in media and in life. It's a subject to be discussed within certain boundaries depending on their maturity level. No one is saying teach preschoolers how sex is performed by LGBT couples, but rather that it's not wrong to teach them there are different kinds of people and families and that's okay.
2. Withholding discussion is a form of power and a form of othering those who you do not believe are proper members of society. Saying schools should have nothing to say about the existence and experience of gay people as regular human beings is absolutely a way of making them appear as lesser or disordered and thus worthy of shame.
1) The point is that the spectrum of human behavior isn't a basis from which to educate. It can easily be done other places if it's that important to you as a parent. 'Death' is different from murder and I don't consider murder an ideal thing for kids to have to engage with. A therapist is better than a public school educator. It must be developmentally appropriate and better still permitted by parents to discuss as kids within grades have different emotional maturity levels. You're trying to make the case that the liberal parent in a divorce is the standard. I'm making the case that they're the ****ty parent. Why look to the parent that lets a six year old stay up all night watching horror movies, joining random discord channels to play roblox unsupervised, and eating sugar for breakfast as a role model? The lowest common denominator should not be a standard for achievement.
2. Children don't belong to the state. Again, privileging your own morality is just another exercise of power. This is why post-modernism is a farce. It doesn't elevate all narratives, it subjugates many for a preferred one. If public school taught all moralities and beliefs as in depth as it does secular humanism we'd be having a very different discussion. You don't care about 'othering' because you think it's wrong; you care because you want it to happen to a different group than the current one.
DirtDiver said:Why should a government funded school teach sexuality at any level? The public school finds itself all too often teaching a one sided philosophical world view.Quote:
What is it that you think I'm fine with? I am fine with a public school teaching children (of appropriate age) what homosexuality is and that it exists. Or that some people identify as queer and trans. I'm fine with a book or story containing an LGBTQ character. I am also fine with a school teaching that Christians exists and that they generally believe 'x'. Or having a book containing a Christian character or a reference to God.
example: Philosophy of science (not scientific fact) on the origin of the universe. A one-sided philosophy of science without the other view represented.
Do you think that during the sexuality talk they would invite a conservative Christian pastor to speak to the biblical views on sin as it relates to sexuality? I don't think so. Given that, the student's receive a one sided secular world view. This is indoctrination vs education.
AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Why are other people's beliefs a boundary to my rights? What makes my rights inferior? This is the question you aren't answering. That's why I cite public accommodation: the necessity of it has shriveled up and just about blown away. There are millions of florists, millions of cake bakers, etc. There are few barriers to entry anymore save for social media and extremely large companies (which is why these cases never involve them). If I started a Christian printing company and didn't sell to atheists who cares? Hop online and get it done another way probably for less.
Looking at schools let's ask the question: do they spend as much time teaching any religion as they do focusing on secular humanist morality? There are people who would encourage transitioning children even in high school. Is the school prepared to help transition them from atheist to Muslim? You frame this as a removal of privilege without acknowledging that it now privileges secular humanism. You treat your sexual ethic as the null hypothesis and don't teach anyone else's. You've replaced one privileged belief system with another and see nothing wrong with it because it's yours.
Side note: I think public accommodation is the way to treat social media privileging political viewpoints.
Hey everyone, AGC hates all non-white and non-Christians. He wants to murder all gay people and install Christian Sharia Law in America.
I see we are back to the making stuff up about me game. Literally nothing you just said applies to what I post on this forum or what I believe. Are you drunk? Do you not read my posts?
I'll back out of this thread back and forth with you. Its just not productive. . . . You are debating these issues with someone else, but certainly not with me.
What a bizarre reaction. I've laid the groundwork for this response in several posts but you aren't reading them together for some reason.
You said you support my rights until it infringes on someone else's. I asked what the boundary is and why that's the boundary. I even listed specific ideas associated with my practice several posts back which lead to these examples. Public accommodation is an easy example of where this plays out with competing beliefs and rights. So is education. I'm trying to explore where these rights bump up against each other but you seem to get frustrated and take it really personally.
Privileging your morality instead of someone else's isn't being neutral. Removing it from the public space would be though. If you're totally against sex ed in education great! Let's get it out. But if you think it's ok we need to recognize that as your own personal belief system being privileged.
Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
We don't introduce children to every behavior on the human spectrum simply because it exists; it must demonstrate it is good or beneficial
Two issues: 1. Bull***** Kids are introduced all the time to things that are of questionable value. Your issue is an inability to indoctrinate kids to your specific liking.
2. Who is deciding what is "good or beneficial"?
1. I totally agree that kids are introduced to things of questionable value. Saying, 'x, y, and z exist in the world so kids should know about it' is lazy argumentation. For example murderers exist but I ain't showing elementary school kids an actual murder and saying you might want to express yourself as this when you're older so we'll help you transition to a sociopath. This is a parenting question, not an education question.
2. That's the question right? There's a lot in schools that isn't necessary so let's keep it out. Then you as a parent can decide that. Everyone can practice their belief as they see fit without things like school being a battle ground.
1. Are you comparing love between consenting adults with sociopathic murderers? Can't see the problems with that comparison? Kids are exposed to death and even violent death very early in media and in life. It's a subject to be discussed within certain boundaries depending on their maturity level. No one is saying teach preschoolers how sex is performed by LGBT couples, but rather that it's not wrong to teach them there are different kinds of people and families and that's okay.
2. Withholding discussion is a form of power and a form of othering those who you do not believe are proper members of society. Saying schools should have nothing to say about the existence and experience of gay people as regular human beings is absolutely a way of making them appear as lesser or disordered and thus worthy of shame.
1) The point is that the spectrum of human behavior isn't a basis from which to educate. It can easily be done other places if it's that important to you as a parent. 'Death' is different from murder and I don't consider murder an ideal thing for kids to have to engage with. A therapist is better than a public school educator. It must be developmentally appropriate and better still permitted by parents to discuss as kids within grades have different emotional maturity levels. You're trying to make the case that the liberal parent in a divorce is the standard. I'm making the case that they're the ****ty parent. Why look to the parent that lets a six year old stay up all night watching horror movies, joining random discord channels to play roblox unsupervised, and eating sugar for breakfast as a role model? The lowest common denominator should not be a standard for achievement.
2. Children don't belong to the state. Again, privileging your own morality is just another exercise of power. This is why post-modernism is a farce. It doesn't elevate all narratives, it subjugates many for a preferred one. If public school taught all moralities and beliefs as in depth as it does secular humanism we'd be having a very different discussion. You don't care about 'othering' because you think it's wrong; you care because you want it to happen to a different group than the current one.
This is a lot of deflection to justify making your beliefs the standard for education.
Sapper Redux said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Why are other people's beliefs a boundary to my rights? What makes my rights inferior? This is the question you aren't answering. That's why I cite public accommodation: the necessity of it has shriveled up and just about blown away. There are millions of florists, millions of cake bakers, etc. There are few barriers to entry anymore save for social media and extremely large companies (which is why these cases never involve them). If I started a Christian printing company and didn't sell to atheists who cares? Hop online and get it done another way probably for less.
Looking at schools let's ask the question: do they spend as much time teaching any religion as they do focusing on secular humanist morality? There are people who would encourage transitioning children even in high school. Is the school prepared to help transition them from atheist to Muslim? You frame this as a removal of privilege without acknowledging that it now privileges secular humanism. You treat your sexual ethic as the null hypothesis and don't teach anyone else's. You've replaced one privileged belief system with another and see nothing wrong with it because it's yours.
Side note: I think public accommodation is the way to treat social media privileging political viewpoints.
Hey everyone, AGC hates all non-white and non-Christians. He wants to murder all gay people and install Christian Sharia Law in America.
I see we are back to the making stuff up about me game. Literally nothing you just said applies to what I post on this forum or what I believe. Are you drunk? Do you not read my posts?
I'll back out of this thread back and forth with you. Its just not productive. . . . You are debating these issues with someone else, but certainly not with me.
What a bizarre reaction. I've laid the groundwork for this response in several posts but you aren't reading them together for some reason.
You said you support my rights until it infringes on someone else's. I asked what the boundary is and why that's the boundary. I even listed specific ideas associated with my practice several posts back which lead to these examples. Public accommodation is an easy example of where this plays out with competing beliefs and rights. So is education. I'm trying to explore where these rights bump up against each other but you seem to get frustrated and take it really personally.
Privileging your morality instead of someone else's isn't being neutral. Removing it from the public space would be though. If you're totally against sex ed in education great! Let's get it out. But if you think it's ok we need to recognize that as your own personal belief system being privileged.
By your own logic we just shouldn't have public spaces. To include education.
kurt vonnegut said:
I have not promoted public accommodation laws. Or said schools should encourage transitioning children. I have not asked for my views to have privilege.
I am frustrated. . . Your entire posts are strawman arguments. Like I said, you are not engaging my posts. You are projecting far left ideologies onto me and engaging those ideas. When you stop doing that, we can talk.
I think the majority it's not even that they're teaching this, it's just that it comes up on its own regardless because there is a gay kid or a kid with gay parents and kids notice things. A simple answer to a simple question isn't "teaching" anything in a "here's a lesson on gay people" sense, and I don't know what people are supposed to say when Timmy has two mommies and the other kids wonder why.Quote:
I wont go out on a limb and say that X never happens, because there's always one instance somewhere it did happen. But I will say I think it's a huge myth that schools are pushing some extreme gay agenda or something. I dont believe for a second schools are "encouraging" kids to be gay or trans. More like, some schools are simply teaching kids that LGBT people do exist and live among us. And this is something kids should be taught and be aware of so they aren't confused when they see these people in real life.
