Why nobody told me this shit existed?

Pretty much. Child sexuality is recognized when convenient. Even the word "sexualization" meant to describe the difference between Looney Tunes and furry porn to mean "making kids aware of the existence of same sex couples" or "Gonzo wearing a dress". It's not meant to mean anything consistent or real, just a feeling and a convenient suspicion. It's a way to present yourself as wronged because the more honest framing is that there are parents who want their kids to hate gays.

then why do parents and teachers keep pushing kids to be straight, anon?

We got millions of fish in the sea do we need to make a cartoon about life underwater? And why do we need to ban something if we don't need to make it available to the children? And not teaching sex ed and abstinence only can have kids having sex without knowing them making babies.

I'm pretty sure it's not samegayging when you reply to two separate comments one time.

Except I never reply to the same comment twice, I reply to a comment once and then you link to another one where I commented once.

This just circles back to why do characters need to be single and Chinese. It's a ridiculous you'd never ask at every instance, you'd understand any reason one may have while accepting they don't need reasons beyond what they want to do. And intentions aren't ever clear or required in these cases. Suddenly asking why these particular types of characters are needed now doesn't make sense beyond trying to make a nonsense case against having them at all.

The fact that you can’t stand behind your own argument and need to make it seem like there are more people here and split up the replies like this is extremely telling.

It’s not a weird assumption, especially given that poster count is barely rising yet all of a sudden their are apparently several people arguing with saying the same shit yet none of them have given any actual proof not to mention so far I’ve accused three yet it’s just you and the “other guy”

Not the guy you just responded to but you went to two of my comments when I get what connected to only one comment each and said I was same gayging for that. That's how you started it so you started out accusing someone of Same gayging by having them linked to two comments they did make but not to the same comment and yes I have Asperger's.

Did you actually bust out your phone/computer? Seriously are you that desperate. Also you know what I mean by proof and you know I’m not talking about the gay shit so stop being obtuse.

It’s funny how you did this now instead of at the very beginning almost like you had to get a different device to reply like I said in the previous comment.

>also look at the time you can't make 2 comments in less than a minute
He's going to accuse you of having 3 different devices with three different IPs.

You mean it leads to it after 4 in one case and five in the other case times.That's like saying someone has to be same gayging because multiple people link to the original OP comment..

Seriously follow the chain up those comments it's more than just one time .

You connected to two of my comments with both what commenting on different things if you look at the comment above those two comments you notice that comment only has one comment for it.

NTA but you derailed a thread because you can't substantiate what you believe. As I've said, you don't believe in anything.

>I'm sorry, I'm too used to arguing with people who say showing a gay couple existing is wrong because gay couple have sex and now straight Christian parents need to tell their kids about gay sex. I forgot you can worm your way into a "showing pregnancy and birth is okay because parents can lie to their kids about storks". You aren't making sense.

I haven't been samegayging and I'm not going to keep up with how many anons you're replying to. You were ignoring posts from the start because you'd rather be pedantic about what qualifies as a need for a gay character in something, asking a question not asked of anyone but gays. All because you didn't want to reply to

>This line of thinking is never consistent and the suspicion of "grooming by knowing the existence of gays" is meant to overshadow more likely cynical reasons someone would want gay characters in children's media: showing gays makes it so kids are more likely to see them as normal and vote to let them keep marriage and adoption rights. The long game of making media and then hopefully coming across some kid who got hypnotized by the thought of Santa's white ass getting rounded by BBC then coming to you at your second job as a creepy uncle or a PE teacher is insane. The more simple explanation is rejected because often those rejecting it understand why it would be necessary; they're trying to groom their kids into hating gays and voting against their rights. They don't want to have arguments with them in the future. This disagreement they'll come to based on gays being depicted as normal in media messes with what they want for their family. People existing and making what they want feels like an attack.

You've been avoiding my posts from the start.

I came back to the thread before bed. I'm going to assume we both had fun nights and are just now checking back. Thanks for continuing to show you're avoiding posts.

theoretically no, but then again, why are the zoomers the gayest generation of all time?

That's what happens when there's so much acceptance and LGBTQBRAAAAP++ is described as a vague spectrum you enter by having any sort of non-straight thought. Now any inclination to jerk off with your bros or any prison gay situation is "LGBTQ". I don't think people are getting gayer, the language and what's considered gay has broadened.

You're avoiding posts by assuming everyone who posts at you is the same person. You'd rather post about that than respond to or defend positions because you know you're ridiculous. "Why do kid a need to see gay characters" was shown to be a ridiculous question and it was even answered. You asked for proof we were different people and we gave it to you and you revealed there was no condition you were going to believe us. All you have are tangents and derailments.

[...]
[...]
I'm not talking about gay teenagers, I'm talking about literal eight year olds being groomed into calling themselves gay and trans and shit which never happened until very very recently.

[...]
>but what about this Japanese child porn
Is that seriously the best you could do

It's the same answer. Sexuality isn't perfectly gay or straight so since straight is a narrower category while "LGBTQ" is a vague spectrum, most people fall under that spectrum. The concept of "born this way" is an old one, it's always implied gays were gay as kids. The concept of everyone being a little gay is also old too, and now that people are applying these categories more, there are less "straight" people. Sexuality is unpredictable in a lifetime, it's complicated throughout, and straight is often not the most accurate description of most people having considered that. It's dumb to categorize people like this as a study because it's just a show of self identification rather than some sudden change, biological urges hijacked by the thought of Santa having a black boyfriend.

You don't believe in anything. The more time you waste, the more clear that becomes.

Not the guy you just responded to but you went to two of my comments when I get what connected to only one comment each and said I was same gayging for that. That's how you started it so you started out accusing someone of Same gayging by having them linked to two comments they did make but not to the same comment and yes I have Asperger's.

A local moron who constantly posts bullshit. Lots of people do that, but all of the other ones will change the argument or use some kind of deflection tactics when they're proven wrong. Famicom is the only one who's brain-damaged enough to try and lie to you about something that's literally right in front of your face.

It's not real, it's fake.

Oops, sorry, wrong thread...

[...]

>instantly gets off topic with stupid question
You started samegayging and only started b***hing about things being off topic after you outed yourself
>gets further BTFO'd
“No u” again isn’t going to work
>starts calling people samegay
Which you already showed to have been doing
>gets mad when I try to help him keep track of who he's responding to
See the top
>gets mad that I'm here to reply to other anons
That was me you moron, they both were, which is why I’m calling you out for it.

>nooo please engage with me and stop calling out how I had to stoop to pathetic desperation tactics in order to argue my point
No, like I said from the beginning if you wanted to argue this you should have done it properly instead of samegayging and all the other dumb shit you’ve been pulling. You trying to veer off now is only an attempt to obfuscate the shit you’ve pulled to salvage the thread.

>gets mad that I'm here to reply to other anons
You didn’t since after being called out for dial posting you fricked off until I made your other larp look moronic by having to explain what samegayging is and then you came in doing exactly what I said you would and you’ve been just going in circles and acting moronicly desperate for hours, for frick sake you didn’t even post it until I had to call you out for it. But this has already been said. This has all been said you’re just going in circles to waste time hoping that regurgitating the same shit over and over is going to make you look less guilty. Also I did answer the questions you gave and you still have yet to actually explain the necessity and instead resorted to samegayging to make it look like you have numbers on your side but again I’ve already said.

How so?

>Explain the necessity of a child knowing about homosexuality
Is a non sequitur and it was explained.

Says nothing of the sorts.
Read

Says nothing of the sort.

>Santa's Husband is a hard core gay porno book written by Daniel Kibblesmith and illustrated by Ashley Perryman Quach.

>The book is about Black Santa getting a raging boner after taking some old guys "blue pills" and White Santa rips his cloths off with just his boner and they start fricking each other and covering each other with their cum.
>4 hours past and they're still hard, .... Lets just say they frick the elves and reindeer for DAYS on end and if you're not gay it's not a pretty sight.
>It has even turn bi men STRAIGHT it was that disturbing.

>There's even a YouTube video of a lady reading the book from 3 years ago.
Someone upload the YouTube video.

No YouTube video exists as port is against YouTube TOS, there is a PornHub video that a gay porn star read the book naked and hard as a rock however.

There is none, (s)hes lying.
The read along is on PornHub however.

It's right here.

You didn’t the second I called you out for dualposting you went to arguing semantics about how you replying wasn’t samegayging and I had to tortuously explain it before you fricked off and came back acting like a different person. Which is moronic given that there has been barely any activity and the poster count hasn’t even reached fifty. Like I said you’re only calling this derailment to get away from the fact that you’re being called out for samegayging. You’ve been chimping out and timing out your post between hours just for the hope that you can get the last word in. Stop being pathetic.

You never called me out for dualposting. I'm replying to others here. You might be too actually moronic to be a troll, too much time your wasting.

FAMICOM POSTED THIS! I FRICKING KNEW IT WITH HIS SIIVAGUNNER SHIT!!!!

Shopped title card and that video just a collage of memes and SiIvaGunner remixes (including Grand Dad/Flintstones), you just posted from a shit posting channel.

Also thats a guy; Now kindly frick off.

Thanks for warning me that this was a FRICKING FAMICOM THREAD!!!!! Delate this fricking thread and range ban this butthole.

Thats a YouTube Poop video of memes and SiIvaGunner music, 100% unrelated to the topic.

You're the one who's been BTFO.

Yes, he's Santa. He brings gifts to children, you should know this by now.

By next year he WILL be replaced with Donald Trump.

I got distracted by that more clear call out with the other guy, this didn't register as a call out, just the same weird accusation and distraction. Not much to do other than tell you you're still incorrect and avoiding the topic.

[...]
But the YouTube video is real and from 3 years ago.

That YouTube video is a YouTube Poop video of memes and SiIvaGunner music is the thing.

You posted a YouTube Poop video, I'm going to fix this.

>doesnt deny samegayging
>just pretends to be shitposting again
It’s like clockwork

There is no other guy, it’s been you this entire time and you’ve just been alternating between different larps whenever you frick up.
>Not much to do other than tell you you're still incorrect
Which you’ll never be able to actually back up given you already outed yourself twice and even tried acting like you were shitposting after sheer desperation. All you’ve been doing is trying to appeal to some hypothetical onlookers as well when the only people that are actually here have been calling you out as well. Go back to wherever the frick you came from and stay there.

>I've been here since 2004
That has nothing to do with what’s going on here but I know it’s bullshit since you think that if you just larp as an oldgay you think that somehow that’s going to make me baulk. You’re not even being subtle about it you picked the year after the site was founded since saying 03 straight up would have been too obvious. Also you’re the one that’s been spending hours samegayging and doing all of this shit all to save face.
>you make me feel like I'm getting my good points across just fine. So thank you
You already tried acting smug and it just highlighted your desperation further, if you could put you points across properly you wouldn’t have needed to samegay in order to argue them. Also why should I argue with a samegay? It’s like getting into a debate and your opponent starts chucking apples at you and the second you tell them to stop they start saying how you’re going off topic and that it’s not happening.

Except it’s neither since you’ve just been desperately sperging out for hours going from desperate tactic to desperate tactic all to try and save face and get the last word in. You’re most likely just going to do this until bump limit where you will time out every post so you can get the last word in. Not to mention you did admit earlier that you were an actual autist.

Says nothing of the sorts.
Read [...]

Yea, if anything you're the one with a ego issue.

Shopped.

Is there any problem with Oak Park and River Forest High School?

You're asking on hypothetical and semantics about what it means to include and "go out of your way". You're telling me shows go out of their way to show blacks or Indians. Getting into the liberal Californian heads of writers and people involved into the creative process isn't productive and it's not relevant to the post or conversation.

The kicker is you're trying to define "going out of your way" as if homosexual Californian writers, borders, and show runners didn't already like the idea of including gay people.

The kicker is your ignoring most of that post, the part that related to the point you were trying to make:
>Also if you avoid the topic with your kid, they'll likely assume it's just another marriage. Marriage isn't descriptively about one man and one woman, it's not like they go blank and stop all thoughts when you decline to answer something.

Then this is just about your feelings and suspicions. You're going to accuse a homosexual Californian just doing what they want of social engineering.

And where do you stand on marketing? You let your thoughts on ESG influence how you feel about Americans, a country with a lot of black people, including black characters, but a few in Japanese games isn't ESG. Is it marketing?

This comes down to your feelings, there's nothing to really talk about. In fact, you were being disingenuous when you tried to reduce the issue to just

>How do you explain the difference between two friends of the same sex and a homosexual couple without talking about sex?
And then post about how your kid is immune from understanding gays because you assume kids don't figure anything out if you decline to answer their questions.

Why didn't you just start with your suspicions? Was there some more neutral appeal you were trying to sneak in?

And at it's most nefarious, the "we're coming for your kids" is to say that they're going to show gays as normal. The idea is that if they see them they are less likely to vote against gay rights.

At it's most neutral, yeah it's just people making what they want.

The conditions you introduce and how you think kids don't see gay couples unless they are explained don't make sense and are negligible at best. It's like the point of this conversation is for you to tell me you're a contrarian with loads of suspicions and invested in a certain narrative.

>I want little kids to know about sex
Kids have parents and don't need to know they have fricked. Kids see pregnancies in cartoons and that is more "I want little kids to know about sex". From the start this is a ridiculous accusation.

The first example isn't just cynical, because it's reasonable for people to know that parents are trying to raise their kids to hate gays and vote against their rights. Also parents aren't the best educated themselves and often aren't the best educators. So it's fine to teach kids fire safety, waiting in line, raising your hand, respecting religions, gay couples happen, Peruvians are people, and the sky is blue (unless it's night in which case it's black if your little shit wants to be a fricking homosexual about it). It's fine to influence kids in some cases.

>Somebody put that on a banner
lol thank you.

>Because a kid doesn’t know that that is how pregnancy happens.
Then teaching kids about sex through showing Santa with a boyfriend is a complete non sequitur.

>The best standard is that the parents decide what is right for their kids.
It's not and saying "well majorities can be wrong" isn't new information, it was already considered. Leaving people to their own devices when it comes to a lot of things yields worse outcomes easily prevented with education. At this point, it's not about "gay good" it's just about their existence. You're framing their existence as breaching some parental right.

You're just talking about grooming kids with Marxist ideology. I prefer raising standards so kids grow up to be better people instead of more accepting of your failures.

Gays and people supportive of gay rights at the very least were okay with gays, so you got more gays. The entertainment industry is very gay and liberal, they didn't need to be bribed to put gays in shows and actually Disney and CN actively pushed against their inclusion.

The entertainment industry needs to attack my Catholic art projects which directly connect to things like Steven Universe to dispel the LGBTQ association with things like fusion.

No, that was ESG that wanted more representation, normies wanted none of that.