It seems like videos of violence are also getting blocked, and I expect eventually stuff about LGBT relationships etc will fall under it. Lots of things are adult that aren't porn.
We all know why - because people view LGBT people in a uniquely sexual light. The elephant in the room is that, for a lot of people, when they see two men holding hands their minds are immediately thinking about anal sex.
Yes, that sounds harsh and crude, but it's true. I've noticed it for decades. It's weird, it's not right, but it's how people react.
That's why a children's book with Mommy and Daddy is so mundane, so boring, so... nothing, that we don't even blink an eye. But Daddy and Daddy is different. Because of the implication.
Of course, only adults make the implication because they're nasty perverts. And they then project that perversion onto the innocent.
I mean, it's so fucked it's almost comical. We put babies in "ladies man" onesies and nobody cares. Do we not see how fucking weird that is? But suddenly we so much as acknowledge the existence of homosexuals and it's so risque.
This is a shockingly ugly and ignorant comment. These are very basic and tiresome arguments that the LGBT community has refuted for centuries.
You are the problem. You are very very wrong and it hurts people. Please educate yourself and overcome these flaws in your worldview.
> Because they swing their p*nis in front of children during parades and whatnot.
I live in Seattle where public nudity is legal. We have nude public beaches. We have a solstice parade with nude cyclists. Nothing about the LGBT community makes them more or less likely to participate in these things that straight people also do because they are things people do.
Nudity is not sexual. Wearing a bathing suit is not sexual. Wearing clothes is not sexual. If you find these things sexual it is because you sexualized them in your own mind.
> Sounds like a good enough reason to me and it sounds pretty much "adult" to me, unless you think genitalia is not "adult", but then why do we have this porn restriction in the first place if some people could go outside and engage in this type of behavior, in front of anyone, including children?
Good enough reason for what? Infringing the rights of citizens who have done nothing wrong?
> Maybe they should stop shoving it (their "business") down your throat?
It seems to me that the LGBT community has had a lot more forced down their throats in the form of marginalization and outright aggression. Where is the LGBT community forcing anything down your or anyone’s throat?
> I do not have a problem with homosexual people.
You clearly have a problem with homosexual people. The fact you conflate homosexuality with the LGBT community is even more of a red flag.
> I have a problem with them only if they invite me to their bedroom.
Inviting you to a bedroom is free speech. You can say no. Simply being lesbian or gay or bi or queer is not an invitation. Personal expression is not an invitation. If you interpret that as an invitation, especially a forced invitation, that is your own ignorance and insecurity showing.
> It is none of my business, and please do not try to make it my business by force.
That’s right. It’s none of your business. Where or when has the LGBT community forced anything on you? Demanding equal treatment is not forcing you to do anything other than mind your own damn business.
> You clearly have a problem with homosexual people. The fact you conflate homosexuality with the LGBT community is even more of a red flag.
The G in LGBT literally stands for gay, so no, it is not a red flag, and for your information, that was an example because it is related (or relevant). And please, do not tell me who I have or don't have a problem with. Who are you to know better than I? I have a couple of homosexual friends and I could not care less about their sexual orientation. I do not care about yours either. Why would I care about anyone's sexual orientation? It is their own business, not mine, and I do not want you or anyone else to make it my business. This is the most important part.
It is wild that there are people like you who think nudity is not sexual. There was some guy who made into the HN main page and it turned out that he was in prison for "SEXUAL EXPLOITATION/EXPOSE ORGANS". Exposing organs, nudity, yeah. So, if there are adults being naked around children, why restrict porn online? Okay, I will give you that in Seattle they may not do that, I have no idea.
In any case, swinging your d*ck in front of children is disgusting and apparently illegal in many places. There are many videos of it online of this happening.
For the record, I treat people equally. If someone, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion, or whatever starts swinging their d*ck in front of children, I will have a problem with that.
I am not going to reply to the rest nor will I engage in a conversation with someone who straight out attacks me and tells me that I am the problem.
I wish the members of the LGBT would actually mind their own business as you viciously said; yeah, that would be great.
Thank you. Next time please be less hostile and assume less. For what it is worth, you strengthened my preexisting beliefs.
'videos of violence' is quite wide: children shouldn't be watching videos of people being executed by gangs for example.
A lot of LGBT content is aimed at adults. I think we should always be clear when we are making statements like this because it causes great stress, a worked example:
People will claim that LGBT is under attack because this law potentially affects some LGBT spaces. These spaces will clearly be meant for 18+ audiences and so fall correctly under the law. Then other people see the first group of people, and from their point of view that group is complaining that their 18+ spaces are blocked from children. "Think of the children" drama ensues.
It is similar to Steam taking down incest/rape games and people claiming it was an action against LGBT creators. I don't think that's an argument that should ever be made for obvious reasons.
I don't think the government, even if it were under the Conservatives, have banning gay spaces on their current agenda.
Even if you think a lot of the content captured by the ban should be banned, I don't think age restriction mechanisms should be put on it. Talks around sexuality, the mere mention of certain crimes and unrest are being banned by social media companies, all because of this act. Companies seem to be acting out of caution.
I simply don't want to be forced to provide my ID / face to be able to read or access politically important news on social media. Some people would be happier if the bill was limited to only pornography: they likely don't think it has a major effect on UK politics.
