"Politicians Banning Books With LGBTQ Ideology Is More Dangerous Than Drag Queens Reading Them To Children." Agree or Disagree?

[Physics-Man]

Agree

Disagree

[hahahmm]

The same people pushing the LGBTQ books support Hamas and other Islamics so why should I care what they claim to think? The same people they support would execute them for being homosexual.

[BCRanger10]

No. Next question.

[BCRanger10]

Thank you for MHO 🙌

[OlderAndWiser]

Isn't it overly broad to say that politicians want to ban LGBTQ books? The only discussions I have heard have related to keeping those books out of school libraries; that is far different from banning the books entirely.

You would agree, wouldn't you, that porn should not be available in public school libraries? That is because parents should control when, and if, their children are exposed to such materials. Schools should not be usurping parental rights and responsibilities for the purpose of advancing a sociopolitical agenda by the indoctrination of young and impressionable minds. That same logic applies to LGBTQ materials.

You should be able to buy such things at Barnes & Nobles, but your third grader should not be checking out such materials from the school library.

[Pohjolan]

Why should something like 1984 be removed from a school library though?

[Anonymous]

When I think of people clutching their pearls to “Drag Queen Story Hour”, I just picture the same people who pointed at Elvis Presley’s hip gyrations saying “SATAN!”, same with those pointing at Metal Album Covers rather than listening to the MUSIC & UNDERSTANDING THE LYRICS!

Now with that being said, banning books that discuss LGBTQ+ topics does hurt individuals more than a Drag Queen reading someone a book.
Why? When you suppress someone’s identity or knowledge of one’s identity, it can disable them from understanding their complex feelings / emotions also suppress what they are feeling to be true about themselves which causes mental trials, feeling not meant for this Earth, and a monster.

I stand by LGBTQ+(which is not an organization, but an acronym for Sexuality)

Rob Halford, Elton John, Johnny Mathis, George Michael, and so many more are all talented human beings gifting the people of the world magical musical experiences who just happen to be homosexuals. If they were heterosexual nothing would change, though a lot got hate just for being gay which is not okay.

Again, banning education is worse than some man dressed as a woman reading a book. Simple as that. If you are afraid of men dressed as women reading a book, pretty sad.

[Opinion Owner]

LGBTQ+ isn’t a choice, it is what you are born with.
If I tell a heterosexual to stop kissing, hugging, respecting, and having sexual relations with women because my God was Gay, it wouldn’t stop them just as homosexuals do.
I’m a Heterosexual White Male and I can’t tell a Homosexual what to do, I have to live with that. Idc.

[DonaldDarko]

It's important to note that keeping material children are exposed to age appropriate is not the same as banning books. You can't be too careful these days with pedophiles and their sympathizers doing everything they can to get their grooming material in front of children's eyes. The lies are everywhere, don't fall for it.

[David318578]

Your question is worded pretty poorly. You can disagree because you don't think either option is dangerous or you can disagree because you think they are both equally dangerous..

Completely opposite ideology gives the same answer means your question was terrible

[American_dawg]

And tomorrow, children, we'll read the Old Testament and all about the eternal fire that awaits our new friend the drag queen.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

lgbtqs have no business instructing children either way. These clowns can't even tell the difference between a boy and a girl. They need to be in padded cells, not instructing children.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Whose idiotic statement was that? The real issue is why do drag queens want to read to children?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

There is no such thing as “a little censorship” this leads down a path I don’t like to see in our government

[David318578]

Sure there is a such thing as a little censorship, saying children can not watch porn is different then banning all porn.

Banning adult themes from children is perfectly acceptable.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

It starts with wanting to “protect” kids, not realizing that educating them about what they’re witnessing is just as good, if not better, for their psychological development as keeping them ignorant until it’s “appropriate”

[David318578]

It's up to the parents to decide when it's appropriate

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Yes, it is up to the parents. Not the government

[David318578]

The government is just "banning" them from schools, therefore taking that decision out of the teachers hands and putting it back into the parents hands.

Those "banned" books are still available for parents to get, so when the parents decide the child is mature enough for more sexual topics, they can provide them if they want.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

We’re not talking about banned books, we’re talking about censorship

[David318578]

Well the banning of adult themed books was the argument that it's "censorship"

What books are being censored?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

You do realize being anything but cishet is not inherently sexual, especially in books marketed to children, right? If you can’t think of anything but sex just because someone mentions the word “gay” that sounds like a you problem

[David318578]

This thread was about banning books from children and you said that wasn't the censorship you where talking about, so all I did was ask what you are talking about, what censorship is happening?

Also gay is a sexual orientation so you can't be talking about a sexual orientation with talking about sex.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

You’re also focusing way too much on gay sex. Censorship “for children” can be for any reason depending on the local laws. For example, “To Kill A Mockingbird” is a book banned for its racist themes, not for any mentions of sex. The point of the book is to give readers a conversation about racism and what “Justice” actually is outside of social norms that, at the time, would condemn anyone who isn’t white even if they weren’t guilty. It’s supposed to encourage critical thinking, and the book got banned

[David318578]

It's a book that uses racial slurs so I can understand not wanting young kids to read it. Great news is you can buy it or check it out of a library and give it to your children, you see that puts the power of what your children read into the hands of you.

Should teachers be able to teach your child about Jesus? Or is that something you can handle on your own?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

My argument is against censorship period. You’re talking exclusively about censoring things for kids, as if at one point creating art or media surrounding certain subjects wasn’t an offense worthy of arrest and imprisonment at one point. Censors used to be so bad that you couldn’t show a married couple sharing a bed on tv, or saying the word “pregnant” on the air because both implied having sex even though it was a married, heterosexual couple. Banning subjects period, regardless of if it’s “for the kids” or not is ultimately a detriment for society. Using the innocence of children to spearhead the argument of continued ignorance just because some parents don’t want to have those conversations with their kids is something I abhor. The point of art and media with questionable, sometimes inappropriate content, is to make. People. Ask. Questions. It’s supposed to make you think, allow you to grow intellectually, banning anything just because it makes you uncomfortable is something that I see as causing active harm in society. I’m not just talking about the stuff that involves things like “I Am Jazz” but censorship as a whole. Parents can decide what is and isn’t appropriate for their kids, not schools and not government authorities. See my point now?

[David318578]

Well of course this is about kids because that's what the OPs question was about, also my reply to you was about censorship of adults themes to kids.

And you can't say it's up to the parents to decide and not the schools or government when it's the schools who are teaching kids adult topics against the parents wishes. When that happens you need to have the government step in with laws to ban the teachings of certain topics to children, that will put it back into the hands of the parents.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

My answer was about all censorship, not specifically shit for kids. And I’m done with this bullshit if you’re just not gonna get it

[David318578]

I get what you are saying, I'm just disagreeing with you, because kids exist in this world so being against all censorship means that you are also against censoring kids from adult themes.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

And I disagree with censoring adult themes from people who are going to be adults eventually anyway

[David318578]

So are you also against the age of consent? Because "they will eventually be old enough anyway"

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Fuck off already

[David318578]

If me pointing out the HUGE flaw in your thinking makes you mad, then maybe you should reevaluate your position rather then attacking me.

Protect children from adult themes that are outside the control of the parent seems like a pretty logical stance to take, your opposite philosophy gets really ugly really fast.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

We both know you’re just doing this bc you’re bored. If you think I’m such a threat, you wouldn’t be arguing with me, you’d report me. And now you’re pulling shit out of your ass bc you can. This is the 20th reply, I’m not doing anymore, you wanna keep talking then DM me but I’m done.

[Chazmatazz269]

Both are forms of indoctrination. Neither is superior to the other.

[HawkPerception]

Both should be banned. Books with rainbow brigade propaganda and trans reading to kids

[AngryCarl2]

If I had to pick one, I'd say both are ill advised.

[Godihateyou]

Why do they insist on reading to children when old folks homes could use the company? It's because they are evil abusive pedophiles

[Panthero80]

I don't understand why these men insist on reading to kids in drag. Why can't they read to the children wearing traditional men's clothes if they simply want to read?

[Anonymous]

It's comparing control to creepy. In this case, I don't want the creepy forced on kids.

[Anonymous]

Either or is insecurity. Kids are smarter than most adults.

[DrPepper12]

Book banners are NEVER on the right side of history. Ever.

[beefcakebradybatson]

The Moustachioed Madman would be SO VERY PROUD of Agent Orange, Beardo and their fellow travelers !!!

[Anonymous]

Those kids look disturbed.

[midnightmoon05]

Children? What are group?

[SmokinAces2000]

Agree