Leave it to Texas republicans to ban books. Free speech is circumstantial, apparently.

[Hutch Starskey]

Our children need to be shielded from the perversions of humanity you evil fags promote.

Yep. We must create a new generation that is as ill equipped to deal with the realities of life as their parents are. Brilliant!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If you weren’t trying to promote the faggot lifestyle why would the reader need to know the character was gay? Could be just a story about any fully clothed kid right?

Why do you equate being gay with sexual imagery? That sounds like a YOU problem.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, but when I write a character, I have an idea of what that character looks like, even if certain aspects are spelled out.

And, yeah, if she were a double-D cup, people would notice.

Yes, everything in a book or other piece of writing is there for a reason, otherwise it is poor writing. Especially in a children's book, which must now be filled with pictures and as little text as possible since the public schools only need them to read well enough to swallow the propaganda. If a detail is unimportant, it isn't mentioned.

If there is a story about a kid who wants to play baseball, and there is a biological female who identifies as male and also wants to try out for the team, that character is there for a reason, not just randomly. If liberals were only a little smarter, their propaganda would be more like that, rather than making the transboy the central character. Having a graphic picture of a biological female fantasizing about having a penis and getting oral sex from a guy is too in-your-face to be effective at persuasion.

Sometimes, though, I think libs like it that way. It's more satisfying for their lust for power if they can force people to accept that kind of blatant disrespect whether they are persuaded or not.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Give them the impression that homosexual behavior is a normal life choice.

It is not, it is a perversion of the natural order

As homosexuality is a naturally occurring human characteristic, it is a part of the natural order. Teaching children to be homophobic bigots is the anti-social and unnatural state.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why do you think it's OK to groom children?

Sick fucking pervert

As opposed to grooming them as ant-social homophobic bigots?

 

[Billy000]

He knows more than you, dumbass.

I have a bachelor’s in it so I doubt it. If he had that degree or higher, he wouldn’t be voting Republican lol

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Let’s say the kid who is reading the book is having no luck with the girls. He might decide to see if he can score with boys. He might even decide to try being a bisexual to double his chances.

Now to be totally honest I don’t see a novel with gay characters but no porn as all that big a deal. I worked with a number of gay people during my career and never felt any desire to try their lifestyle. I found gays to be intelligent and good workers.

I grew up the the 1950s and 60s. They were a couple of guys in my classes that people felt were gay. I felt sorry for them as they were often picked on.

When did you first suck a dick?

 

[lennypartiv]

We have the right to ban books if it's done to protect our children.

Why don't liberals understand this?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I don’t much care. But I am curious. Why did J.K. Rowling find it necessary to claim that Dumbledore was gay? Did it contribute to the story?

Someone asked her if he was married. She answered no, and why not. Yes, it's that simple.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As usual, you are missing the point. There is no reason to present sexually oriented material to pre-sexual kids.

Is that what the OP proposed?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Look. Faggots don't raise quality people. Faggots aren't quality people.

If they were, they could have survived through all of human history until now...protected by real men who do real work protecting civilization.

Now fuck off and accept nature.

^ “Quality person”.

 

[Billy000]

oh it's definitely abnormal the APA simply decided not to list it any longer because it stigmatizes gays.

Your perception of it being abnormal does not mean the field thinks it is abnormal. In order for something to be considered a disorder, it must either cause harm to the person with it or anyone else around that person. Simply being gay does not cause harm to those around them. Simply being gay does not cause harm to the individual since many gays are content with their sexual preference. There would also need to be a perpetual pattern of harm as well.

And no, you being too childish to tolerate any gay people does not count.

 

[Couchpotato]

So republicans are concerned books are “pornographic” if they have gay characters in it. There doesn’t have to be sex or nudity in these books of course. They are simply pornographic for having gay characters lol. Republicans have the emotional maturity of 8th graders. This is ironic, of course, because they are pretending to they want to protect kids of such an age.

Think about this critically, republicans. Let’s say a kid’s book has a gay character in it who is fully clothed through out and a child read it. Do you really think with any rationality that this would turn the kid gay?

Conservatives are removing 'pornographic' books from schools. Many feature LGBTQ+ characters.

Conservative politicians and activists have successfully removed more than 1,000 unique book titles from schools, often arguing they're too obscene.

www.yahoo.com

what age group are we talking about here? If it's below the age of 10-12 Im not sure why anyone in their books has to have a sexual preference.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

what age group are we talking about here? If it's below the age of 10-12 Im not sure why anyone in their books has to have a sexual preference.

How is a book featuring a mom and a dad highlighting a sexual preference any less than a book featuring same sex parents?

 

[Batcat]

When did you first suck a dick?

I am straight. Nobody interfered with my development as a young child. I don’t dislike gay people but their lifestyle holds no appeal for me.

I really liked my first grade teacher and had she taught all about LGBTQIA and how boys can be girls and girls can be boys I might be a member of that community today.

Fortunately that didn’t happen. I was never groomed.

 

[sartre play]

Sorry, icky to see so many so overly interested in other peoples sex life.

 

[BackAgain]

Someone asked her if he was married. She answered no, and why not. Yes, it's that simple.

Could have been simpler though. “No.”

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Why do you equate being gay with sexual imagery? That sounds like a YOU problem.

LMAO! WTF do you think gay means or is? It’s purely sexual you moron. Just the word gay means man who sucks dick. If you didn’t want your reader to know this male character sucks dicks you wouldn’t have mentioned he was gay.

You fucking people are retarded.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

When I was a kid, there weren't any books depicting straight people performing oral sex upon one another, but we sure did learn math and science and history.

Today the unthinking woke demands we expose our children to gay blow jobs as necessary to their education and who cares about the math, science and history.

Virtue signaling is a mental disorder.

 

[scruffy]

As homosexuality is a naturally occurring human characteristic, it is a part of the natural order. Teaching children to be homophobic bigots is the anti-social and unnatural state.

The natural order is that homosexuals are ostracized from society. It's been that way for thousands of years.