There is no question that the MAGAbertastan government of Danielle Smith caved to christofascists who are trying to erase anything that acknowledged the existence of LGBTQ+ people or that makes young children harder to sexually abuse.

Fuck them and the dogs they rode in on.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What gets me is that these kinds of people don't seem to understand that LGBTQ+ are just people. Their neighbor's kid could be gay, their own son could be trans, or their longtime friend of 40 years could be queer.

LGBTQ+ are not "others", they are us. Banning books, making homosexuality illegal, taking away health care options from them won't "make the gay go away". It's just something that happens, even in super oppressive states.

Ultra conservatives aren't just jerks, they're also stupid.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

LGBTQ+ people exist, have always existed, and will always exist. If they have always existed then their existance is normal. There is nothing that anyone can do to change that.

If the 7% of us that are LGBTQ+ are abnormal are the 2% of people with naturally red hair abnormal? Are the 2% with naturally blonde hair abnormal? The 8% with blue eyes?

[–] slowbyrne@lemmy.zip 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Please don't associate dogs to those people. Dogs deserve better.

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

fuck them and the comically-oversized mosquitoes and bedbugs, glutted on the blood of children, they rode in on

FTFY

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Makes young children easier to sexually abuse* ?

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

No. They want the young children to be easier to sexually abuse. They are trying to ban anything that makes young children harder to sexually abuse by teaching them about their bodies, sex, and consent.

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I think it is intended to convey that knowledge of these things makes young children harder to sexually abuse. For example, if young boys recognize that guys can have sexual relationships with each other, they're more inclined to question the motives of an overly nice, male stranger. The awkward phrasing makes me think the commenter just typed a little faster than he was reading and tongue(?)tied themself.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Does the addition of the word, "that" in front of, "makes young..." make my intention clearer?

[–] DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

They said the bans are trying to erase anything that makes young children harder to sexually abuse.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Dogs would know better than to bear such vile filth on them anywhere. These harpies congealed from the ooze that flows, like a glutinous tar, from the hearts of every despicable conservative voter in that misbegotten, backwards, armpit-of-a-province.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago

In a social media post on Sunday, Atwood said since the literary classic is no longer suitable in Alberta’s schools, she has written a short story for 17-year olds about two “very, very good children” named John and Mary.

“They never picked their noses or had bowel movements or zits,” she said in the beginning of her story.

“They grew up and married each other, and produced five perfect children without ever having sex.”

My gawd I love this woman! What a story!! 🤣🤣