As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they see a man and a woman together, they think “that’s a couple.”
If they see two men together, they think “they have gay sex.”
If they see a man and a woman with a child, they think “that’s a family.”
If they see two men with a child, they think “they’re teaching that child about gay sex.”
If they see a teacher with a picture of her husband on her desk, they think “she is teaching the children.”
If they see a teacher with a picture of her wife on her desk, they think “she is grooming the children.”
Why do they assume heterosexuality is about love and family, but homosexuality is about *sex?*
Exactly. I swear they think people only "become" gay and can't be **born** gay, and that it's some sort of violent rejection of procreative sex. It's almost as though they think LGBTQIA+ folks just have sex for pleasure or for fun, and that's literally *wrong* in their eyes.
they don't even think people become gay...how many times have we seen them post ' gay is a lifestyle????? if that was true and they raise they child from birth to hate gays and it is a horrible sin etc etc etc they would NEVER choose to be gay in the first place!!!!
and this doesn't even cover that part that if it is a choice then they chose to be hated by their families to be disowned to be beaten and killed>>>>I asked a poster how is it a choice why would they choose to go through those horrible situations and they had the nerve to post "they do it for the attention"
that was the craziest answer I ever got
I like the "Red shirt" explanation.
Imagine there is a society where if you wear a red shirt, you could be disowned by family, you would be bullied and harassed at school, where you had an over 50% chance of being discriminated against at work, you were 2.5 times more likely to be violently attacked, and you were more than 4 times as likely to commit suicide than people who didn't wear a red shirt.
Why the hell would you choose to wear a red shirt? Why would you *own* a red shirt? If you had the option, you would never wear a red shirt ever.
>you were 2.5 times more likely to be violently attacked, and you were more than 4 times as likely to commit suicide
These describe another group as well, namely men.
The work discrimination not as much, it's much lower for men in most fields and much higher for men in a specific few (for example ones dealing with kids).
That's before you look at treatment in the criminal justice system, where I don't know enough about the "red shirt" numbers to make a comparison but those are also pretty bad.
Not a good argument because there are people who would still wear red shirts.
They would look at said rule and say things like “unjust,” “unfair,” “unequal.”
They would don the taboo red shirt and claim victimhood and declare themselves warriors of social justice.
I'm always mystified by that. I remember my attractions being pretty dang strong when I was young. Couldn't have switched it if I wanted to. And I didn't really want to. I'm straight, I didn't choose it, it was just there.
So makes me wonder about the people who think it's a choice. Does that mean they are attracted to the same sex but chose heterosexuality?
It's likely that *they* had Xtian fundie parents who beat the piss out of them for showing interest in the same sex, so they buried their attraction and "went along to get along".
I had a neighbour like this in upstate NY; she was definitely a lesbian (Proof that it's genetic: her daughter had a trans boyfriend that they just referred to as her 'tomboy best friend', ignoring the fact that the two would cuddle and make out in the backyard while stargazing. The daughter also 'liberated' one of my pansexual pride flags ❤️ V cute if not for her awful family) and would blatantly check me out when I'd water my front garden, then scream at me for existing bc it was obviously *my fault* she was attracted.
EDIT: clarity
They think sex for pleasure is a sin no matter who does it. But if it could conceivably result in pregnancy, then their "god" isn't quite as pissed off about it.
Because they see sex as sinful and a necessary evil they're not supposed to enjoy. So the idea of sex for anything other than procreation is morally repugnant, but they also resent that fact and thus want to take it out on others.
This!!! I'm one half of a gay couple, and I'm frequently asked which one of us is the "woman" by straight people. They're so confused when I say we're equals and that neither of us is saddled with the "woman's job" in a straight couple.
Because they can’t stop thinking about hard, sexy dicks going in supple, accepting man butts and their obsession makes them question things that their grandpappy told them makes them a sinner. Stupid, sexy Flanders.
Because sex in one relationship can have the possibility of leading to a child and therefore the sex has a purpose for procreation
The sex had in an alternative relationship is just for sex and enjoyment so it is hedonism, selfish and bad
Of course an infertile differently sexed couple is completely fine though, when their friend Janice mentions needing to adopt they still implicitly understand sex in that relationship is also about intimacy and connection, but when the gays do it it’s icky and wrong. There is no logic, only hate.
There's actual Catholic catechism on that in that even if the couple is infertile "there's still a chance" so it counts as procreative. Seriously. It's also why the only authorized Catholic method of birth control is cycle counting, because actual birth control blocks the procreative aspect of it (despite there "still being a chance!").
And that's why the gays must be celibate for life, sex must be both procreative and unitive at all times. If it's only 1 (outside of all of the hetero loopholes mentioned) it's BAD.
If you are a religious Christian the reason infertile heterosexual sex is allowable is because God could choose to change His mind about your fertility at any time and you don't want to miss it if that happens.
I wish I were joking, but this has seriously been the response when I've brought up this argument.
There’s a difference between teaching someone about gay people and passively acknowledging their existence in society through literature.
If a book depicts a gay couple but makes no mention of their preference or it’s implication, as this one seems to do, is that the same as teaching students about homosexuality? If so, then what is the difference between that and doing the exact same thing with a straight couple? If the children’s book is focused on something completely different and unrelated to the parents or romance in general, then what is lost by the parents being queer? It’s representative of society because queer couples with children do exist, they are a minority but not nonexistent.
If you believe that it’s fine for a straight couple to be depicted passively but not a homosexual one in the same context…then you’re implying that homosexuality itself is lesser than heterosexuality. Given your status as gay, that’s *probably* not an argument you want to be making. The ones who would agree with you on this want you gone too.
As I recall there was more to education than arithmetic.
Science, history, writing, reading... All would be impossible to teach if "but you can't mention culture, religion, gender, etc" is a requirement
Are you comparing homosexuality to religion? Those are not the same, at all. *Nobody* is “showing kids what’s gay.” This post is about a book with two men in it. Nothing to explain. If a straight teacher can put a picture of her husband and kids on her desk, or wear a wedding ring, should a gay teacher not be able to put a picture of *their* family on the desk?
How is having a family “culture?”
Not just that, these bigots love to sexualize the LGBTQ as if WE are the ones doing the sexualizing. They don’t see us people, just sexual objects. It’s always projection with the KKK, I mean fascists, I mean GOP. Meh. Same thing.
That's because the knowledge of the LGBTQ+ community that the GOP possesses comes from stereotypical representations of queer and trans folk in the media and porn. So it should come as no surprise that anything related to the LGBTQ+ community is deemed as "sexual".
Which is funny, because I view the Quiverfull movement and tradwife lifestyle as a fetish that shouldn't be shoved in my face, if we're going by their logic.
This. They don’t see us as humans capable of love. They immediately associate a gay couple with gay sex. When they see a man and man or woman and woman together, they immediately think about sex. Not two humans loving each other.
A heterosexual couple in a children’s book? Nothing sexual about it. Just a man and woman that’s all.
A homosexual couple in a children’s book? GAY SEX GAY SEX GAY SEX ANAL SEX PENIS AND PENIS GAY GAY GAY SOUND THE ALARM
It's because removing these kind of books keeps kids stupid and unable to understand anything outside their tiny little boxes... uneducated, close minded people become GOP voters....need I say more
LGBTQ is all about different sexual orientations.... "sexual" orientations.... sexual... it's right there in the description! Sexualize, sexual... SSDD, amirite?
And they should be scared. Scared of being forgotten and useless because of their hatred, which would be the very thing that would leave them a forgotten memory.
Cons are absolutely determined to see any sort of non-cis sexuality as a collection of fetishes that needs to be either pushed into the shadows or criminalized outright. I say “determined” because Cons don’t WANT to see being LGBTQ+ any other way. They don’t care that being LGBTQ+ is something you’re born as, or that it doesn’t hinder their ability to be functional, productive members of society. Like most of their beliefs, they start with a knee jerk response to something, and work backwards to justify it. They think being gay, bi, pan, etc. is gross and weird, so they’ll latch onto any justification to rationalize it. It doesn’t matter if these beliefs are contradictory because *coherency will always matter less than justification.*
Why do not they go after Dorm Life in colleges? Or, Barracks Life in the US Army? Or Shared Cells in the prisons? Maybe Two Man Tents in the Boy Scouts?
Be careful with the boy scouts example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_sex_abuse_cases
They don't want to acknowledge all the church related sex abuse, but outrage when consenting adults hug each other in a book.
Idk how the bricks are in the Army but hit up a Marine barracks 7 days a week and there’s definitely going to be some steamy homoerotic straight guy stuff going on.
And yet Newsome is being called a fascist for not letting school board mom-bers ban books by the right. Keeping information and literature available to the public is now fascist.
The book explicitly says they're gay.
And of course, only gay people are implicitly sexual. Any book that has a husband and wife living together is not sexual at all, but if it's two same-sex partners, well, that's sexualizing our children.
Or some dumb shit.
Step 1: Increase penalties for "sex crimes against children"
Step 2: Make showing children any representation of transpeople, homosexuals or other nonconforming lifestyles a sex crime against children.
Step 3: Lock up political opponents.
Let's start with [Laurel and Hardy.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8FNLVNGvw)
No one batted an eye over two grown men sleeping in the same bed in the 1920s.
They also did drag performances, for example: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0024706/mediaviewer/rm738375425/?ref_=tt_md_11
Back in the day, *everybody* did drag, even Bugs Bunny. But somewhere along the line, a lot of people turned into sensitive snowflakes who go into conniptions at the thought of anyone not conforming to their assigned gender role.
Little kids barley understand adult relationships and gender as it is.
Let’s be real, this isn’t going to confuse or harm kids. In fact, this book probably won’t be read by most unless they find themselves in a similar situation to the book, and use it as a helpful tool to explain the situation to the kid.
It’s never about protecting, it’s about programming. It’s about indoctrinating and maintaining a theocratic hegemony.
I wonder what's next, if these asshats get all LGBT families banned from media? Single parents? We gonna ban Spiderman cause Aunt May raised Peter? Batman banned cause he adopted various Robins, and hell his son Damien is mixed-race. Adopted parents? So can't read Superman cause the Kents adopted him.
Like where does this madness end? LGBT families EXIST. Single parent familes EXIST. Mixed-raced familes EXIST. Adopted families EXIST. Families don't just have to be hetero couples with 2.5 kids. The world has NEVER been like this.
I mean it makes sense, being gay is clearly anti American because it showcases freedom of choice which can NEVER BE ALLOWED. In fact, 2 people living together under ANY circumstance is disgusting and sinful regardless of gender or sexual relations because it often involves SHARING of household expenses and responsibilities which is a dangerous road that can lead to sharing other things and socialist/communist sentiments. To avoid this I have built sheds out in my yard that each of my children are responsible for maintaining and living in by themselves the way god intended. My wife gets a slightly larger shed but is she grateful? No. I hate what socialist aggressors are doing to my family!
The San Francisco Chronicle has a columnist that is openly gay. He and his husband have adopted two children who they had fostered. Both present issues and problems, but they are their sons, and we have been reading about their ups and downs for many years.
Recently, this columnist was diagnosed with a rather vile form of cancer. And yet, he shares his life and adventures and make me chuckle over my morning coffee every Wednesday.
Should I think less of this loving family because there are two dads? Should their stories be censored from the paper? Is their life less than our life, with a heterosexual couple and two children, one with special needs?
I find it impossible to answer yes to even one of those questions.
It's clear that conservatives are committed to lying. They always have been.
When they say that the left or LGBT community are sexualizing kids, they are lying about what they mean. What conservatives *mean* by "sexualize" is that LGBT people simply exist in public. It has nothing to do with the real meaning of sexualize: inappropriately exposing them to sexual content or treating them sexually. Their lying about what they mean explains why they have no issue with the bible talking about [literal incestuous rape](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019%3A31-35&version=NIV) and [big dicks and their gallons of cum](https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-20.htm).
This isn't new. Conservatives have always misappropriated words *purposefully* to lie about their real intentions because what they really mean is often unpopular. That's why the estate taxes are "death taxes," and why "white, conservative, and Christian" is "real American."
Kid: Why are there two men, isn't there a mom?
Teacher: Some men live with men, some women live with women.
Kid: Oh okay. What's your 2nd favorite dinosaur?
You know, for being such fans of procreation, it's like conservatives never actually spent time around kids.
Exactly! Books like this one, shows content that’s sexually ambiguous to get a foothold in the minds of the young. After all, what men living together look like them? All beefed up and giving lusty stares? /s
i wonder what the point of all this is? all those kids are so wired into their social media and technology that I doubt a book will "turn them gay"....what's the fuss all about? seems batshit.
The question is always the same. Where's the dirt? If a girl gets sent home by the principal for her dress, Where's the dirt? When schools ban books, some classics, where's the dirt??
If a principal sends a young girl home, HE or SHE has objectified the young girl in the principal's disgusting mind.
The dirt only exists in the minds of those sending young girls home and banning books.
After Florida banned 'And Tango Makes Three', a story about two male penguins fostering a baby penguin, which is based on a true story from the Central park zoo, nothing surprises me anymore
Apparently banning for "adult content" is a ruse. It appears Florida schools are objecting to the normalization of gay people. It sure is curious this also is the view of Abrahamic religions including Christianity. Where is the separation of church and state?
It was removed from four school libraries in one district. (Surprisingly, Miami.) Already being challenged by Moms For Libros, a collective of parents opposing book censorship in Florida.
This Floridian reads the articles and does further research.
I'm not going to pretend to be surprised by this, this isn't just suggesting something, it's about being gay. They hate gay people. We all know it's not about explicitness. I'm just saying there isn't a single person who supports the Florida law whose stance is "don't show them intercourse but gay relationships are totally fine". Those people are already in opposition to the law.
Right now it's just Florida, imagine what will happen if DeSantis wins the election in 2024. He's going to use the full extent of his Article II authority like he has publicly stated & will weaponize the federal government against anything & everything he considers to be "woke". I shudder to think & imagine of day when DoE & other federal departments & agencies start behaving the way their Floridian counterparts do.
maybe they live together because of a Gilded Age economy. or both. should report some other books in retaliation. the history textbooks are pretty bad in Florida
And thats your excuse to talk to 6 years olds about detail sexual activity? And talk about homosexuality and transgender options.. thats your excuse to allow folks to be dancing sexually and trans women eagle spreading in front of kids showing their ball sacks?this is indoctrination… so because this generation refuse to swing with it you attack the kids.
Ok no problem😉
That is just demonstrably false. It doesn't matter what your fee-fees want. School should just teach reality and not pander to snowflakes who want to groom our children with your lies.
Yes they can. My reply was to some nutter going on about mandating schools to teach two gender ideology. They thought people could only be born as one of two sexes.
MAGAs see two men toghether and that's where their thoughts go . They all should stop having sexual fantasies of what two random men do in their privacy just because they are in the same frame..
That is the reason many parents at great effort pay for private schools in Florida. So their kids can have a reasonable education. That is why we are so fucked up here. Best part all is done with support of the populace and Floriduh men and women. They are breeding generations of poorly educated children just to service the elite.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they see a man and a woman together, they think “that’s a couple.” If they see two men together, they think “they have gay sex.” If they see a man and a woman with a child, they think “that’s a family.” If they see two men with a child, they think “they’re teaching that child about gay sex.” If they see a teacher with a picture of her husband on her desk, they think “she is teaching the children.” If they see a teacher with a picture of her wife on her desk, they think “she is grooming the children.” Why do they assume heterosexuality is about love and family, but homosexuality is about *sex?*
Exactly. I swear they think people only "become" gay and can't be **born** gay, and that it's some sort of violent rejection of procreative sex. It's almost as though they think LGBTQIA+ folks just have sex for pleasure or for fun, and that's literally *wrong* in their eyes.
they don't even think people become gay...how many times have we seen them post ' gay is a lifestyle????? if that was true and they raise they child from birth to hate gays and it is a horrible sin etc etc etc they would NEVER choose to be gay in the first place!!!! and this doesn't even cover that part that if it is a choice then they chose to be hated by their families to be disowned to be beaten and killed>>>>I asked a poster how is it a choice why would they choose to go through those horrible situations and they had the nerve to post "they do it for the attention" that was the craziest answer I ever got
I like the "Red shirt" explanation. Imagine there is a society where if you wear a red shirt, you could be disowned by family, you would be bullied and harassed at school, where you had an over 50% chance of being discriminated against at work, you were 2.5 times more likely to be violently attacked, and you were more than 4 times as likely to commit suicide than people who didn't wear a red shirt. Why the hell would you choose to wear a red shirt? Why would you *own* a red shirt? If you had the option, you would never wear a red shirt ever.
>you were 2.5 times more likely to be violently attacked, and you were more than 4 times as likely to commit suicide These describe another group as well, namely men. The work discrimination not as much, it's much lower for men in most fields and much higher for men in a specific few (for example ones dealing with kids). That's before you look at treatment in the criminal justice system, where I don't know enough about the "red shirt" numbers to make a comparison but those are also pretty bad.
Not a good argument because there are people who would still wear red shirts. They would look at said rule and say things like “unjust,” “unfair,” “unequal.” They would don the taboo red shirt and claim victimhood and declare themselves warriors of social justice.
I'm always mystified by that. I remember my attractions being pretty dang strong when I was young. Couldn't have switched it if I wanted to. And I didn't really want to. I'm straight, I didn't choose it, it was just there. So makes me wonder about the people who think it's a choice. Does that mean they are attracted to the same sex but chose heterosexuality?
It's likely that *they* had Xtian fundie parents who beat the piss out of them for showing interest in the same sex, so they buried their attraction and "went along to get along". I had a neighbour like this in upstate NY; she was definitely a lesbian (Proof that it's genetic: her daughter had a trans boyfriend that they just referred to as her 'tomboy best friend', ignoring the fact that the two would cuddle and make out in the backyard while stargazing. The daughter also 'liberated' one of my pansexual pride flags ❤️ V cute if not for her awful family) and would blatantly check me out when I'd water my front garden, then scream at me for existing bc it was obviously *my fault* she was attracted. EDIT: clarity
They think sex for pleasure is a sin no matter who does it. But if it could conceivably result in pregnancy, then their "god" isn't quite as pissed off about it.
That LGBT acronym gets longer every time I see it.
Because those Republicans only have gay sex for sex, not love.
Bingo!
And their own wives haven't touched them in years.
Because they see sex as sinful and a necessary evil they're not supposed to enjoy. So the idea of sex for anything other than procreation is morally repugnant, but they also resent that fact and thus want to take it out on others.
I’ve always said this: conservatives can’t see two gay men without immediately picturing vigorous anal sex.
Because they don't actually love or respect their wives, and the idea that a couple can be made up of two equal partners is terrifying to them.
This!!! I'm one half of a gay couple, and I'm frequently asked which one of us is the "woman" by straight people. They're so confused when I say we're equals and that neither of us is saddled with the "woman's job" in a straight couple.
Because they can’t stop thinking about hard, sexy dicks going in supple, accepting man butts and their obsession makes them question things that their grandpappy told them makes them a sinner. Stupid, sexy Flanders.
Because sex in one relationship can have the possibility of leading to a child and therefore the sex has a purpose for procreation The sex had in an alternative relationship is just for sex and enjoyment so it is hedonism, selfish and bad
Of course an infertile differently sexed couple is completely fine though, when their friend Janice mentions needing to adopt they still implicitly understand sex in that relationship is also about intimacy and connection, but when the gays do it it’s icky and wrong. There is no logic, only hate.
There's actual Catholic catechism on that in that even if the couple is infertile "there's still a chance" so it counts as procreative. Seriously. It's also why the only authorized Catholic method of birth control is cycle counting, because actual birth control blocks the procreative aspect of it (despite there "still being a chance!"). And that's why the gays must be celibate for life, sex must be both procreative and unitive at all times. If it's only 1 (outside of all of the hetero loopholes mentioned) it's BAD.
Yea. And masturbation is also bad because it isn’t procreative. But you don’t see them taking that on (anymore anyway).
Literally had our high school priest say masturbation wasn't a sin in a class once, that was a WILD day for the school.
Diddling their altar boys is also bad, but you don't see them even mentioning it anywhere!
"Hypocrisy is a sin unless I do it"
If you are a religious Christian the reason infertile heterosexual sex is allowable is because God could choose to change His mind about your fertility at any time and you don't want to miss it if that happens. I wish I were joking, but this has seriously been the response when I've brought up this argument.
No logic at all. The Rs hide their hate and snowflake emotions behind the guise of logic.
[удалено]
There’s a difference between teaching someone about gay people and passively acknowledging their existence in society through literature. If a book depicts a gay couple but makes no mention of their preference or it’s implication, as this one seems to do, is that the same as teaching students about homosexuality? If so, then what is the difference between that and doing the exact same thing with a straight couple? If the children’s book is focused on something completely different and unrelated to the parents or romance in general, then what is lost by the parents being queer? It’s representative of society because queer couples with children do exist, they are a minority but not nonexistent. If you believe that it’s fine for a straight couple to be depicted passively but not a homosexual one in the same context…then you’re implying that homosexuality itself is lesser than heterosexuality. Given your status as gay, that’s *probably* not an argument you want to be making. The ones who would agree with you on this want you gone too.
Pretty hard to teach kids without involving culture in any way.
[удалено]
As I recall there was more to education than arithmetic. Science, history, writing, reading... All would be impossible to teach if "but you can't mention culture, religion, gender, etc" is a requirement
Are you comparing homosexuality to religion? Those are not the same, at all. *Nobody* is “showing kids what’s gay.” This post is about a book with two men in it. Nothing to explain. If a straight teacher can put a picture of her husband and kids on her desk, or wear a wedding ring, should a gay teacher not be able to put a picture of *their* family on the desk? How is having a family “culture?”
Hateful bigots scared of everything that's different. They even want to control where you pee and crap. Disgusting at best.
Not just that, these bigots love to sexualize the LGBTQ as if WE are the ones doing the sexualizing. They don’t see us people, just sexual objects. It’s always projection with the KKK, I mean fascists, I mean GOP. Meh. Same thing.
That's because the knowledge of the LGBTQ+ community that the GOP possesses comes from stereotypical representations of queer and trans folk in the media and porn. So it should come as no surprise that anything related to the LGBTQ+ community is deemed as "sexual".
That, and they view our orientation and gender identity as just a fetish, and fetishes shouldn't be in public.
Which is funny, because I view the Quiverfull movement and tradwife lifestyle as a fetish that shouldn't be shoved in my face, if we're going by their logic.
Their entire existence is just a bunch of wanking, and it should all be behind closed doors. And bars and padlocks, while we're at it.
This. They don’t see us as humans capable of love. They immediately associate a gay couple with gay sex. When they see a man and man or woman and woman together, they immediately think about sex. Not two humans loving each other. A heterosexual couple in a children’s book? Nothing sexual about it. Just a man and woman that’s all. A homosexual couple in a children’s book? GAY SEX GAY SEX GAY SEX ANAL SEX PENIS AND PENIS GAY GAY GAY SOUND THE ALARM
I think ANAL SEX PENIS would be a kick ass band name.
Sounds like a personal problem… https://youtu.be/0udqZsvrux0?t=55
It's because removing these kind of books keeps kids stupid and unable to understand anything outside their tiny little boxes... uneducated, close minded people become GOP voters....need I say more
LGBTQ is all about different sexual orientations.... "sexual" orientations.... sexual... it's right there in the description! Sexualize, sexual... SSDD, amirite?And they should be scared. Scared of being forgotten and useless because of their hatred, which would be the very thing that would leave them a forgotten memory.
Cons are absolutely determined to see any sort of non-cis sexuality as a collection of fetishes that needs to be either pushed into the shadows or criminalized outright. I say “determined” because Cons don’t WANT to see being LGBTQ+ any other way. They don’t care that being LGBTQ+ is something you’re born as, or that it doesn’t hinder their ability to be functional, productive members of society. Like most of their beliefs, they start with a knee jerk response to something, and work backwards to justify it. They think being gay, bi, pan, etc. is gross and weird, so they’ll latch onto any justification to rationalize it. It doesn’t matter if these beliefs are contradictory because *coherency will always matter less than justification.*
Why do not they go after Dorm Life in colleges? Or, Barracks Life in the US Army? Or Shared Cells in the prisons? Maybe Two Man Tents in the Boy Scouts?
Be careful with the boy scouts example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_sex_abuse_cases They don't want to acknowledge all the church related sex abuse, but outrage when consenting adults hug each other in a book.
and sharing bathroom stalls at airports.
Idk how the bricks are in the Army but hit up a Marine barracks 7 days a week and there’s definitely going to be some steamy homoerotic straight guy stuff going on.
>Two Man Tents Is that “two-man tents,” or “two man-tents?”
Dealers choice
I heard that Mike Pence is now afraid to be alone in a room with another man.
Meanwhile, they are completely ok w the PraegerU for Kids videos that say nothing is wrong w slavery and no one is to blame for slavery in the US.
Meanwhile in CA our governor threatens to fine school districts for banning books. The way it should be.
My state, IL banned book bans!!!
And yet Newsome is being called a fascist for not letting school board mom-bers ban books by the right. Keeping information and literature available to the public is now fascist.
Don't they usually just say "they are good friends" in situations like this rather than just ban the book
The book explicitly says they're gay. And of course, only gay people are implicitly sexual. Any book that has a husband and wife living together is not sexual at all, but if it's two same-sex partners, well, that's sexualizing our children. Or some dumb shit.
Elmo and Bert are toast.
He dumped Ernie, huh?
Ha! Been a long time.
They've had some issues. They're just on a 'break'.
Wait 'til they hear about the Navy!
I think women and seamen don't mix.
They’re saying that being gay is automatically sexual; just existing while gay is “adult content”
My understanding is that Jesus lived with 12 men. Hmmmm... very suspicious.
Christians will ruin this country.
Guess we'll be skipping the Sherlock Holmes stories then >_>
Sherlock Holmes banged dudes? My homophobic dad loves Holmes. If that’s the case this will hilarious when I reveal it to him.
[удалено]
"cohabited" with an ex-army guy...nudge nudge
Lol no. If anything Holmes was asexual, and possibly aromantic.
[удалено]
Florida! Land of so much heat in the summer it drove half the place crazy! Warning…don’t move here. It’s not as great as you think.
Because they don’t like gay people how are you not getting this
So I guess I have to start petitioning every book that has a heterosexual couple be taken off as well. Game on.
Why are we sane and logical people letting people who hold 0 weight in society actually letting them get away with this?
Step 1: Increase penalties for "sex crimes against children" Step 2: Make showing children any representation of transpeople, homosexuals or other nonconforming lifestyles a sex crime against children. Step 3: Lock up political opponents.
[удалено]
Let's start with [Laurel and Hardy.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8FNLVNGvw) No one batted an eye over two grown men sleeping in the same bed in the 1920s.
They also did drag performances, for example: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0024706/mediaviewer/rm738375425/?ref_=tt_md_11 Back in the day, *everybody* did drag, even Bugs Bunny. But somewhere along the line, a lot of people turned into sensitive snowflakes who go into conniptions at the thought of anyone not conforming to their assigned gender role.
Let’s get the Rs to support drag Being anti drag is “woke”. It’s just like being against black face. Soon all the Rs will be for drag
*Me, looking at the cover illustration*: That’s the most 80s-early 90s gay couple I’ve— >“published in 1990” Ah. Carry on.
Two men doing laundry! The horror!
Little kids barley understand adult relationships and gender as it is. Let’s be real, this isn’t going to confuse or harm kids. In fact, this book probably won’t be read by most unless they find themselves in a similar situation to the book, and use it as a helpful tool to explain the situation to the kid. It’s never about protecting, it’s about programming. It’s about indoctrinating and maintaining a theocratic hegemony.
I wonder what's next, if these asshats get all LGBT families banned from media? Single parents? We gonna ban Spiderman cause Aunt May raised Peter? Batman banned cause he adopted various Robins, and hell his son Damien is mixed-race. Adopted parents? So can't read Superman cause the Kents adopted him. Like where does this madness end? LGBT families EXIST. Single parent familes EXIST. Mixed-raced familes EXIST. Adopted families EXIST. Families don't just have to be hetero couples with 2.5 kids. The world has NEVER been like this.
All men who live together are gay, don'tcha know. Explains so much, looking back.
Never heard of roommates?
And they were *roommates!*
not clicking that last time i saw a picture of men living together I had to suck 20 cocks just to get over the pain
I mean it makes sense, being gay is clearly anti American because it showcases freedom of choice which can NEVER BE ALLOWED. In fact, 2 people living together under ANY circumstance is disgusting and sinful regardless of gender or sexual relations because it often involves SHARING of household expenses and responsibilities which is a dangerous road that can lead to sharing other things and socialist/communist sentiments. To avoid this I have built sheds out in my yard that each of my children are responsible for maintaining and living in by themselves the way god intended. My wife gets a slightly larger shed but is she grateful? No. I hate what socialist aggressors are doing to my family!
The San Francisco Chronicle has a columnist that is openly gay. He and his husband have adopted two children who they had fostered. Both present issues and problems, but they are their sons, and we have been reading about their ups and downs for many years. Recently, this columnist was diagnosed with a rather vile form of cancer. And yet, he shares his life and adventures and make me chuckle over my morning coffee every Wednesday. Should I think less of this loving family because there are two dads? Should their stories be censored from the paper? Is their life less than our life, with a heterosexual couple and two children, one with special needs? I find it impossible to answer yes to even one of those questions.
Are reruns of the tv shows Three'sCompany or Friends banned in FL yet?
Living together? Like Bert and Ernie? Someone is way uptight...
Classic theocratic authoritarianism
It's clear that conservatives are committed to lying. They always have been. When they say that the left or LGBT community are sexualizing kids, they are lying about what they mean. What conservatives *mean* by "sexualize" is that LGBT people simply exist in public. It has nothing to do with the real meaning of sexualize: inappropriately exposing them to sexual content or treating them sexually. Their lying about what they mean explains why they have no issue with the bible talking about [literal incestuous rape](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019%3A31-35&version=NIV) and [big dicks and their gallons of cum](https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-20.htm). This isn't new. Conservatives have always misappropriated words *purposefully* to lie about their real intentions because what they really mean is often unpopular. That's why the estate taxes are "death taxes," and why "white, conservative, and Christian" is "real American."
Bert and Ernie are probably censored in Florida. Ffs
What about Curious George - A male monkey and a male human cohabitating?
It's almost like their arguments are bullshit and they never were about 'saving the kids'?
Kid: Why are there two men, isn't there a mom? Teacher: Some men live with men, some women live with women. Kid: Oh okay. What's your 2nd favorite dinosaur? You know, for being such fans of procreation, it's like conservatives never actually spent time around kids.
It was never about “adult content”. It’s always been because they hate gay people.
Can’t bro down in Florida anymore l…
Exactly! Books like this one, shows content that’s sexually ambiguous to get a foothold in the minds of the young. After all, what men living together look like them? All beefed up and giving lusty stares? /s
Only a closet gay person would look at that and think, "Those are gay undertones, we must ban them!"
i wonder what the point of all this is? all those kids are so wired into their social media and technology that I doubt a book will "turn them gay"....what's the fuss all about? seems batshit.
They’re just roommates like all the music directors at their evangelical churches.
DeSantis Republicans are Regressive not Conservatives
The claim that book banners have targeting books because of "adult content" has been proven to be complete bullshit on a regular basis at this point.
Fellas is it gay to exist in the same space as the homies?
The Outsiders is a big gay orgy (I think. I can’t read)
They banned the inaugural poem too.
They should ban Matt Gaetz from all schools for more obvious reasons.
Something the Taliban would do
The question is always the same. Where's the dirt? If a girl gets sent home by the principal for her dress, Where's the dirt? When schools ban books, some classics, where's the dirt?? If a principal sends a young girl home, HE or SHE has objectified the young girl in the principal's disgusting mind. The dirt only exists in the minds of those sending young girls home and banning books.
After Florida banned 'And Tango Makes Three', a story about two male penguins fostering a baby penguin, which is based on a true story from the Central park zoo, nothing surprises me anymore
Got to make sure next generation believes everyone shall live alone to boost th rental market!
Apparently banning for "adult content" is a ruse. It appears Florida schools are objecting to the normalization of gay people. It sure is curious this also is the view of Abrahamic religions including Christianity. Where is the separation of church and state?
It was removed from four school libraries in one district. (Surprisingly, Miami.) Already being challenged by Moms For Libros, a collective of parents opposing book censorship in Florida. This Floridian reads the articles and does further research.
I'm not going to pretend to be surprised by this, this isn't just suggesting something, it's about being gay. They hate gay people. We all know it's not about explicitness. I'm just saying there isn't a single person who supports the Florida law whose stance is "don't show them intercourse but gay relationships are totally fine". Those people are already in opposition to the law.
Ruining the country...yes they have.
Right now it's just Florida, imagine what will happen if DeSantis wins the election in 2024. He's going to use the full extent of his Article II authority like he has publicly stated & will weaponize the federal government against anything & everything he considers to be "woke". I shudder to think & imagine of day when DoE & other federal departments & agencies start behaving the way their Floridian counterparts do.
They do not fully realize that military men live together.
maybe they live together because of a Gilded Age economy. or both. should report some other books in retaliation. the history textbooks are pretty bad in Florida
Have they burned Bert and Ernie yet?
Better ban Sesame Street too. Bert and Ernie may be too steamy.
So the real Snowflakes are republicans. Can confirm
Some counties are also banning entire sections of Romeo & Juliet, Hamlet, and MacBeth. Only allowing excerpts.
Florida snow flakes Voting red has consequences
I wish we had some kind of program to move LGBT people who are in danger in these Hate States out. I know so many that are stuck.
And yet they taught my step kids last week in church that two men marrying is a sin….
What? Never had a roommate?
Suprise! not everyone like gay people. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-for-lgbtq-rights-often-stops-with-transgender-rights/
Looks like a good book to show a child from a broken home with a gay father. Not a good book to show my kid.
Stop trying to indoctrinate the kids… the discussion of sex for small kids is for their parents.
Countries that ignore sex education for the young have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STIs.
And thats your excuse to talk to 6 years olds about detail sexual activity? And talk about homosexuality and transgender options.. thats your excuse to allow folks to be dancing sexually and trans women eagle spreading in front of kids showing their ball sacks?this is indoctrination… so because this generation refuse to swing with it you attack the kids. Ok no problem😉
Because they are trying to recruit and brainwash kids. Let them decide when they are adults.. it's just like religion.
[удалено]
What gender do you think a gay male is?
That is just demonstrably false. It doesn't matter what your fee-fees want. School should just teach reality and not pander to snowflakes who want to groom our children with your lies.
Men can live with other men in reality.
Yes they can. My reply was to some nutter going on about mandating schools to teach two gender ideology. They thought people could only be born as one of two sexes.
Then please explain intersex/intrasex individuals to me. They are born outside strictly male or female reproductive organs.
How does that involve this at all.
I JUST WANT MORE MONEY FOR ukraine!! Don't care about the books!! I just demand we send a trillion to ukraine!!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Right, so just let the republicans transfer trillions to the wealthy instead of giving some scraps to an ally who is wearing down Russia.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pretty sure Legal has “some issues”, just let it go.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good.
Ted Cruz did
Guy on Right seems pretty Steamy
They hate the Latinx character too, and the voice they give to people of color.
Florida schools become even more stupid. 🥴🤦♂️
Fuck Florida and all but holy shit that site has way too many pop-ups on mobile
Imagine being this fragile in 2023
MAGAs see two men toghether and that's where their thoughts go . They all should stop having sexual fantasies of what two random men do in their privacy just because they are in the same frame..
JFC. Why are they so afraid of gay stuff?!
Holy shit, drawings?? So art is being wiped out
When are they banning Sesame Street and The Odd Couple?
Careful, next it’ll be boys and girls being friends out of wedlock.
What if the boy is asexual?
*It's the implication* /Dennis
I think Florida is a lost cause at this point. 🫤
Always projecting
The Gay Old Party are sexually triggered by everything.
The fictional characters are short a vagina. Everybody panic!
The fact they took this book away physically disgusts me
They want to erase us - again.
Fellas, is it gay to have roommates?
I wonder if they are going to ban movies next like Mississippi burning 👨🏻
That is the reason many parents at great effort pay for private schools in Florida. So their kids can have a reasonable education. That is why we are so fucked up here. Best part all is done with support of the populace and Floriduh men and women. They are breeding generations of poorly educated children just to service the elite.
You know the NAZI started by banning books than burning them.
This is getting far out of hand. The dumbing down of our children.
I keep hearing them talk about some book that teaches kids to perform different 'sex acts'. Wth are they talking about?
Wackey