School systems should include LBTQ+ topics in their history and sex education

There's a big difference between P and G.

But that was not the point of the contention.

That was what Theweakeredge made the point of their contention.

The contention arose from the proposition (in black and white)...LGBT topics in their HISTORY and sex education.

It is patently clear that in this thread, that Theweakeredge is only intent on legitimizing  themself, rather than discussing the issue of modern sex education relative to history.

I am older and do not feel as constrained by PC as younger others might do.

I am also H and so perhaps do not fell as socially constrained as others might still do.

Nonetheless:

P is obviously different to G.

Though P is Q

And as I remember quite clearly..... G was once Q. (History)

You are blending biology and law - never a valid attempt because law cannot fully inform biology, nor the reverse. They are entirely different concepts having entirely different bases in fact. Therefore, a fallacious argument.

Don't get me wrong, I oppose pedophilia, but it is not, to me, a matter of consent, because I know 12 year-olds who have consent solidly established, and others, at 21, who do not even think yet in such terms, and probably never will, simply because law cannot universally inform biology.

Well stated.

What are you talking about?? I'm talking about a biological level of maturity which informs one's psychological ability to give consent in a way that isn't subconsiously coerced or pressured. I am not talking about a legal issue, I'm talking about the lack of capability of a population of individuals. 

You're talking about two separate maturity indicators, biology and psychology, that do not necessarily fire simultaneously, informed, or not, just as I've indicated biology and law do not necessarily fire simultaneously. informed, or not. You cannot make it so in mere argument.

ThiS WiLl TuRn KidS GaY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What subjects should be covered in a formal education setting of K-12? Things that affect all of us. Want to focus on specifics that may affect only a portion of the population?  Try another forum. College comes to mind. 

Then we should not teach anything that is not maths or science since we don’t necessarily speak English or practice liberalism.

It does affect all of us. Although not all of us are gay, etc., it is up to all of us that they are normal functioning members of society and that we recognize they exist assuming if Mesopotamia and the Cold War were historically as real.

It is a line of story, history. Within the history we accept, we should know that LGBT people exist and fundamentally are the same with everyone else. Teaching merely they exist and are functioning members of society shouldn’t be frowned upon.

What are you talking about?? Again, I repeat, informed consent when it comes to these sorts of things are not something one can give until they have a minimum biological and psychological maturity - I am not saying they happen at the same time - I am saying that both are a preresiquite to get there in cases of sexual action. 

LGBTQ+ people exist. They have existed in history(In fact, some Greek/Roman Emperors are gay). To deliberately not teach about them would be technically denying history. Then, sex education is literally biology, well, at most an extension of biology, branching out towards maybe even sociology. I see no reason to not teach about literally how the part of one's body works, as well as how it should be used. 

I'm looking at the clear majority of students who do not question gender or sexual activity as relevant in their lives in grade school. I think it's why we don't teach them quantum physics, either.

I think middle school is a good starting point.

According to https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2010/08/sexual-intercourse-and-oral-sex-among-public-middle-school-students-prevalence

children of middle school age "indicate that age at initiation of sexual intercourse may vary by gender, ethnicity, setting and other unknown factors." And at that, it affects less than 20% of all children. That's not a high enough percentage. Not at the risk of losing education in more essential subjects, because there are, after all, limited hours of education, and there's already wasted time taken.  Besides, this is the parents' responsibility more than public/private education.

Good point. I've always wondered why Im forced to learn Kepler's laws instead of Newton's Opticks or Principia Mathematica as part of my elective. I think Kepler is pretty boring but I guess lecturers have to juggle a topic's relevance to student life.

Part of history? Why not?

Some parents outright denies the existence of gay people.

Does not dismiss their responsibility, and it does not behoove the State to take over.

Then are you okay with extreme parents teaching the Holocaust is not real or is not a sinful act or that Women are bound to their husbands? Because these opinions are not right and children deserve a right to know the truth. If we can teach about slavery, suffrage and the Holocaust, why not the LGBTQ?

In the home, practicing the right of free speech and their right of parentage in matters that do not violate the law, parents can reach their children anything within those parameters they want. We may, individually, not like what they teach, but, our rights cannot impose themselves on theirs, and we expect they do the same. I believe all your examples are best taught in the home. from whatever perspective floats the parents' boats, because all those subjects regard human behavior, and the proper demonstration of it.

even if parents do teach it, schools should teach it too for every child deserves to know what is true. 

That implies that teachers only teach truth. Nope. I've encountered the contrary in virtually every year from high school through graduate school. In one undergraduate course in philosophy, the professor challenged me that by the time the course was finished, he would prove to me that God does not exist. He tried very hard, and I made a deal with him early on; if he would agree to not grade me down because of my assurance that God exists, I would accept his challenge to try his best. We ended the year by him telling me, "You've almost convinced me that God exists, and I have not budged you an inch."

So don't you dare tell me that all teachers are open-minded, willing to discuss theory, but entrenched in truth as much as the can. The opposite is definitely true.

Not that parents are all good teachers; they're not. But if children cannot trust parents to guide them, society is in trouble, and it is.

What is open minded.

A baby might be open minded, but accessibility goes downhill from thereon.

And the assumption of entrenchedness generally comes from an entrenched position.

And you professor tale is very Faux. 

Which if true would only lead one to conclude, that said professor was the more open minded of the two protagonists, and that the student was the product of a very entrenched upbringing.....Certainly not a prerequisite of truth.

Um.. how does this relate to my argument? I think you've lost the string - we were talking about informed consent. 

What does truth, then, have to do with informed consent? They are not necessarily compatible, so who's tangling the thread, again?

I have a better idea. How about teaching kids to read, write and do math above a third grade level before they graduate and shove politics and social indoctrination up the school boards ass.

Nice.

Trouble is though, kids have got devices that do all that for them.

The same devices that tell them what to think.

Schools are just a place to hang out with devices these days.

I imagine that we will eventually lose all autonomy.

Political and social indoctrination huh?

I suppose I can agree in some regards, in others, no - LGBTQIA+ education is just scientific information unavailable to a large portion of the population because dipshits don't read and decide it's "indoctrination" to acknowledge that being gay or trans is perfectly fine. shrug

Look buddy - I'm gonna assume your being serious and are actually confused - so I am - what the fuck are you talking about?

Reply:

Re-read my conclusion of #140, buddy. It's already explained. This is parental territory. That they abstain is the problem that is not properly corrected by the institution of education.

"Not that parents are all good teachers; they're not. But if children cannot trust parents to guide them, society is in trouble, and it is."

Good point.

But society is changing.

As I stated, devices are now everything.

We've reached a generation now, where both parents and children are slaves to the device.

Heads down do as you are told.

There's no going back...Only  temporary resistance.

And if the device says that LGBT is cool, then you're going to believe it.

I often wonder why H for heterosexual is not included on the list of exciting options.

Hey...That's material evolution for you.

"scientific information" Ya, there are 54 genders, real scientific