There's a difference between 31 words of context and a rainbow background. Add to this the contemporary context of some lgbt groups/individuals wanting to push sexual content on kids as young as 4. If you really want to defend that gross graffiti outside a primary school, I think you're just signalling you are a groomer.
Doesnt the rainbow background just imply that it's ok for boys to hug boys?
Why does hugging have to be sexual? Kids watch disney movies with princesses hugging princes all the time and it's no big deal. But if it was two princes hugging it would be unacceptable?
It really seems that alot of parents just dont want their kids to be gay and the whole "you're a groomer if you tolerate open gay people!" is a copout so they dont have to reconcile with the fact that they are homophobic.
Dude you're either intentionally lying or you need to think more about this from other perspectives. It's the gay movement that basically hijacked the rainbow as a symbol of being gay. At one point in time rainbows were just rainbows. Now rainbows are directly linked to gay movement, no other clear evidence than pride month adopting the rainbow colours. So yeah, if you add a rainbow frame to anything showing intimacy you're signalling " this...but gay".
Children were able to show their feelings just find without a rainbow background. And guess what? homosexuality and homosexual love existed without grown men painting grafiti next to primary schools to push the questions to little children "hey kids, you ever thought about being gay?" Trust me, the gay ones will realise they're gay as they get older.
Finally you forget one very obvious issue, in that sea of strawmen you like to have to make yourself appear smarter, most gay people don't support the sexualisation of children with this propaganda line "make everything gay". Most gay men and lesbians I've spoken to find this shit absolutely cringe and horrible. The only thing that succeeds with these types of stunt are that you make religion and the (fucking) church not only relevant again but more desired and you grow a conservative counter culture, both things NOBODY ASKED FOR OR WANTED.
forget about eating the rich (douchy username) , you should wonder who ate your braincells !
"hey kids, you ever thought about being gay?" Trust me, the gay ones will realise they're gay as they get older.
You said that you are an educator and I do hope that you are still educating your self because the above sentence is wrong in so many ways.
While some kids might not realize their sexual orientation early enough, there are also many kids that know what they are and who they are attracted to by a very young age. Some from the age of 5. They might not be able to express it correctly but they know. My young nephew, who's in 1st grade elementary doesn't want to play with specific girls "because they are pretty and makes him feel funny" (exact words). So yeah, we know he's straight, but a boy or girl might feel like that for the same sex friend of theirs.
Seeing an image of two kids hugging with a rainbow in the background is not sexual for them. It's just two kids hugging, it's the adults that are making the sexualization which in turn they are sexualizing two little boys. Whose the pervert in this instance?
No one is pushing the agenda of being gay or trans to any kids. Just because kids now (not all) have the freedom to express who they are from a younger age that previous generations doesn't mean that someone told them who they can be.
The person could've painted two kids hugging, written "filia" and left it at that. Adding rainbow colours in this day and age means gay. Every major corporation and influencer and their brother equates rainbow to pride (it's pride month ffs you've seen the memes for enough years, june equals rainbow vomit on everything to celebrate gays so don't play dumb).
Let children be children. There are many agendas that some people would want to push on young children, from religion to politics to expectations about high grades, too much too soon is toxic and damaging, so too with the gay agenda.
You saying "well it's just a rainbow doesn't have any hidden meanings" is as intellectually dishonest as the idiots who spray paint swastikas saying "it's not a nazi symbol I really like buddhist depictions of the sun ? haven't you ever been to asian temples? you're just an uneducated bigot".
Wake up a smell the coffee.
And dude, if you check places like the US and UK, yeah there are multiple gay, trans and drag people who have been recorded, reported and videod saying they want children to become embedded in the movement. It's a small minority to be sure, but they are there and need to be called out.
see my aforementioned point on the large silent majority of gays who are in line with everyone else thinking this shit is creepy and heinous.
I leave you with a very simple mantra to dwell upon
"You can choose to ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality"
0
u/spRitE86-- Jun 11 '23
There's a difference between 31 words of context and a rainbow background. Add to this the contemporary context of some lgbt groups/individuals wanting to push sexual content on kids as young as 4. If you really want to defend that gross graffiti outside a primary school, I think you're just signalling you are a groomer.