From the War on [s]Homosexuality[/s] those unwilling and unable to conform

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You can't just silence us. I represent a growing movement in this country. If the mods are really "nonpartisan", they should stop deleting posts like mine.

It has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with common decency, particularly on a forum where >30% - 40% of users identify as LGBT.

You're the only one trying to turn this into some muh partisan mods issue, probably so you have some reason to justify your complaining other than that you dislike gay people.

Common decency? Explain to me how it is common decency to shove this in the faces of children? This isn't the first time you and the other mods have censored me for stating mainstream opinions. They may not be mainstream on this forum, but they are in real life.

I don't dislike gay people, but I fundamentally oppose shoving sexual content in the minds of children. Is that too mean for you?

How is a book about a bunny rabbit with a bunny boyfriend sexual content? I refuse to believe you are that much of an idiot.

It is sexual because the whole point of it is pushing a narrative of "same-sex relationships are cool and fun" onto children. It's not the content itself, but the agenda that comes with it.

Do you see same-sex relationships as (ceteris paribus) "more sexual" than opposite-sex relationships? If so, why?

Yes, to an extent. Heterosexual relationships in childrens stories and TV are usually just a plot point, like "mom and dad" storylines for example. In childrens stories and TV where a homosexual relationship is shown, it's almost always for the sole purpose of defying norms and pushing an agenda.

You can't deny it.

No, but I can't confirm it either, because that's a subjective interpretation that is itself being imposed eisegetically on children by the adults who have these concerns.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You can't just silence us. I represent a growing movement in this country. If the mods are really "nonpartisan", they should stop deleting posts like mine.

It has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with common decency, particularly on a forum where >30% - 40% of users identify as LGBT.

You're the only one trying to turn this into some muh partisan mods issue, probably so you have some reason to justify your complaining other than that you dislike gay people.

Common decency? Explain to me how it is common decency to shove this in the faces of children? This isn't the first time you and the other mods have censored me for stating mainstream opinions. They may not be mainstream on this forum, but they are in real life.

I don't dislike gay people, but I fundamentally oppose shoving sexual content in the minds of children. Is that too mean for you?

How is a book about a bunny rabbit with a bunny boyfriend sexual content? I refuse to believe you are that much of an idiot.

It is sexual because the whole point of it is pushing a narrative of "same-sex relationships are cool and fun" onto children. It's not the content itself, but the agenda that comes with it.

Do you see same-sex relationships as (ceteris paribus) "more sexual" than opposite-sex relationships? If so, why?

Yes, to an extent. Heterosexual relationships in childrens stories and TV are usually just a plot point, like "mom and dad" storylines for example. In childrens stories and TV where a homosexual relationship is shown, it's almost always for the sole purpose of defying norms and pushing an agenda.

You can't deny it.

Uh, no?  Defying norms would be using media to erase LGBT people from public life, i.e. what most TV shows and books did up until the early 90's or so.

I'm not sure what it is that makes your mind immediately go to sex whenever LGBT people are the subject of something, though.  Maybe you should watch less gay porn.

[Virginiá]

Ok, recall for me, one moment in which I explicitly slandered homosexuals.

Your moderated post in this thread that sparked this whole riveting conversation literally referred to LGBT books as degeneracy.

de·gen·er·ate

noun
noun: degenerate; plural noun: degenerates
/dəˈjen(ə)rət/

    an immoral or corrupt person.

Literally slander

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You can't just silence us. I represent a growing movement in this country. If the mods are really "nonpartisan", they should stop deleting posts like mine.

It has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with common decency, particularly on a forum where >30% - 40% of users identify as LGBT.

You're the only one trying to turn this into some muh partisan mods issue, probably so you have some reason to justify your complaining other than that you dislike gay people.

Common decency? Explain to me how it is common decency to shove this in the faces of children? This isn't the first time you and the other mods have censored me for stating mainstream opinions. They may not be mainstream on this forum, but they are in real life.

I don't dislike gay people, but I fundamentally oppose shoving sexual content in the minds of children. Is that too mean for you?

How is a book about a bunny rabbit with a bunny boyfriend sexual content? I refuse to believe you are that much of an idiot.

It is sexual because the whole point of it is pushing a narrative of "same-sex relationships are cool and fun" onto children. It's not the content itself, but the agenda that comes with it.

Do you see same-sex relationships as (ceteris paribus) "more sexual" than opposite-sex relationships? If so, why?

Yes, to an extent. Heterosexual relationships in childrens stories and TV are usually just a plot point, like "mom and dad" storylines for example. In childrens stories and TV where a homosexual relationship is shown, it's almost always for the sole purpose of defying norms and pushing an agenda.

You can't deny it.

Gay characters only seem to defy the norm because powerbrokers with agendas of their own deliberately exclude gay characters from the norm. The fact that a gay character can't even exist without you seeing it as being about "an agenda" is pretty telling. The gay characters in Schitt's Creek and Modern Family are just people being people. Apparently that is offensive or sexualized?

What, pray tell, do you think it feels like for a gay kid when all he sees are "heterosexual relationships in children's stories and TV" even if they "are usually just a plot point?" Keep in mind, "usually just a plot point" still involves hand-holding, kissing, raising a family together, dating...

He sees that he is not represented because he is "not normal." He sees that he is not welcome.

We need LGBT+ characters on TV just being normal. And until everyone accepts that it is normal, it will always seem like it's defying the norm. Too bad so sad. 

[The Dowager Mod]

My dearest wife Martha:
As we continue our long painful retreat from the latest battle in this never ending war on Homosexuality, The smell of stale Lavander bodywash and Aramis cologne permeate my every breath, Every night feverish dreams of leather chaps and handlebar moustaches torment me.
My dear Martha i fear i may never be able to see our marriage or your brother Steve in the same light ever again.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

LGBT people make up only 4.5% of Americans, so I don't see why couples of that sort need to be "normalized" at all.

Imagine somebody making this argument about other small-ish minority groups--Jews, Muslims, atheists, Asian-Americans, etc. They'd be laughed out of serious discussion.

[PSOL]

LGBT people make up only 4.5% of Americans, so I don't see why couples of that sort need to be "normalized" at all.

Imagine somebody making this argument about other small-ish minority groups--Jews, Muslims, atheists, Asian-Americans, etc. They'd be laughed out of serious discussion.

Those are races and religions though.

And?

[Horus]

LGBT people make up only 4.5% of Americans, so I don't see why couples of that sort need to be "normalized" at all.

Imagine somebody making this argument about other small-ish minority groups--Jews, Muslims, atheists, Asian-Americans, etc. They'd be laughed out of serious discussion.

Those are races and religions though.

I don't see the difference. If anything religion is the odd man out. You have a choice about that.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Also, I would gladly accept a reality where 4.5% of characters in the grand lexicon of material culture were LGBTQ+.

[ProudModerate2]

LGBT people make up only 4.5% of Americans, so I don't see why couples of that sort need to be "normalized" at all.

Imagine somebody making this argument about other small-ish minority groups--Jews, Muslims, atheists, Asian-Americans, etc. They'd be laughed out of serious discussion.

Those are races and religions though.

But who cares? If it's just that these "people make up only 4.5% of Americans," does it matter if it's a "race or religion," or any other group? In your broad definition, they should also be excluded.
You are allowing your internal preferences of what is OK/acceptable, to interfere with the corny and nonsensical judgments you are making.

[ProudModerate2]

... because homosexuality isn't, you know, the norm in nature...

If gay people exist on this planet, then "nature" created them and it is normal.
If people with black pigmented skin exist on this planet, then "nature" created them and it is normal.
They may not be a majority, or like you, or your preferred "type," but that does not give you the power to declare them as not "the norm in nature."

(I mean honestly. Are you listening to yourself. And then you wonder why Virginia has censored some of your "not-very-friendly" comments.)

[It’s so Joever]

Book banning is stupid, no matter what.
All literature has some value and brings important perspectives to the table (except for Twilight)

This is something parents really should be deciding on based on how mature their children are.
That being said, these topics should generally be reserved for a later age, probably 7-8 imho.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All literature has some value and brings important perspectives to the table (except for Twilight)

This pot shot isn't exactly on-trend anymore.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Book banning is stupid, no matter what.
All literature has some value and brings important perspectives to the table (except for Twilight)

This is something parents really should be deciding on based on how mature their children are.
That being said, these topics should generally be reserved for a later age, probably 7-8 imho.

If children were exposed from birth to the very normal reality of same-gender couples, there'd be no need for this to be a "topic" worth "reserving."

[It’s so Joever]

Book banning is stupid, no matter what.
All literature has some value and brings important perspectives to the table (except for Twilight)

This is something parents really should be deciding on based on how mature their children are.
That being said, these topics should generally be reserved for a later age, probably 7-8 imho.

If children were exposed from birth to the very normal reality of same-gender couples, there'd be no need for this to be a "topic" worth "reserving."

By default, it is abnormal, and a concept most little kids wouldn’t fully grasp. I think it varies from child to child, some kids are mature enough to understand the issue at a very young age. Also context matters, the idea of same-gender couples itself is pretty benign, but the LGBT politics and culture really aren’t.

[PSOL]

Book banning is stupid, no matter what.
All literature has some value and brings important perspectives to the table (except for Twilight)

This is something parents really should be deciding on based on how mature their children are.
That being said, these topics should generally be reserved for a later age, probably 7-8 imho.

If children were exposed from birth to the very normal reality of same-gender couples, there'd be no need for this to be a "topic" worth "reserving."

By default, it is abnormal, and a concept most little kids wouldn’t fully grasp. I think it varies from child to child, some kids are mature enough to understand the issue at a very young age. Also context matters, the idea of same-gender couples itself is pretty benign, but the LGBT politics and culture really aren’t.

What exactly is this LGBT “politics” and “culture” you speak of?

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

You can't just silence us. I represent a growing movement in this country. If the mods are really "nonpartisan", they should stop deleting posts like mine.

Lmao! No you don’t. You represent a deceased; reactionary tendency. Don’t flatter yourself. You’re an extreme, extreme minority for anyone under 35.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Historically, for every "culture war win" the left has, the backlash becomes much more painful. But the millennials leave me little hope, and I can only hope for their apathy and disengagement. And I'm hardly optimistic about that stopping the social decadence to come, but I don't think the tsunami will stop before we are wiped out. We may have reached the most half-hearted backlash to date.

When America is relegated to a second class country, at least we will still have our craft beer, our sexual identity and, if we're lucky, our 9 point touchdowns.

[T'Chenka]

Historically, for every "culture war win" the left has, the backlash becomes much more painful. But the millennials leave me little hope, and I can only hope for their apathy and disengagement. And I'm hardly optimistic about that stopping the social decadence to come, but I don't think the tsunami will stop before we are wiped out. We may have reached the most half-hearted backlash to date.

When America is relegated to a second class country, at least we will still have our craft beer, our sexual identity and, if we're lucky, our 9 point touchdowns.

Social decadence is cheating, lying, ghosting, etc. Threesomes, gay sex, trans sex, pegging, BDSM and cuckoldry are certainly not everybody's cup of tea, but it's consenting adults doing what they like in private and nobody's getting hurt.

Not that gay SEX and trans SEX has anything to do with gay COUPLES and trans PEOPLE being represented in a children's book here or there.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

STRONG disagree. I stand with the Duchess of Philadelphia, Camille Paglia. Your farcical modernist moral maxim is an awful lens for assessing decadence. I have much bigger problems with your second list than some of the smaller negatives on your first list.

[PSOL]

STRONG disagree. I stand with the Duchess of Philadelphia, Camille Paglia. Your farcical modernist moral maxim is an awful lens for assessing decadence. I have much bigger problems with your second list than some of the smaller negatives on your first list.

I stopped reading there.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

STRONG disagree. I stand with the Duchess of Philadelphia, Camille Paglia. Your farcical modernist moral maxim is an awful lens for assessing decadence. I have much bigger problems with your second list than some of the smaller negatives on your first list.

No one cares. Not anyone of importance, any way. Your ilk will be dead and buried for good soon. 

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

STRONG disagree. I stand with the Duchess of Philadelphia, Camille Paglia. Your farcical modernist moral maxim is an awful lens for assessing decadence. I have much bigger problems with your second list than some of the smaller negatives on your first list.

I stopped reading there.

Shocking - more anti-Italian bigotry permissible on The Talk Elections Blog

[T'Chenka]

STRONG disagree. I stand with the Duchess of Philadelphia, Camille Paglia. Your farcical modernist moral maxim is an awful lens for assessing decadence. I have much bigger problems with your second list than some of the smaller negatives on your first list.

Can you please elaborate? I would like to understand on a deeper level what your greivances are and why you think they're valid.

[PSOL]

STRONG disagree. I stand with the Duchess of Philadelphia, Camille Paglia. Your farcical modernist moral maxim is an awful lens for assessing decadence. I have much bigger problems with your second list than some of the smaller negatives on your first list.

Can you please elaborate? I would like to understand on a deeper level what your greivances are and why you think they're valid.

She’s a conservative hack masquerading as a Feminist. She doesn’t even believe homosexuality exists.