MovieChat Forums > Politics > Kansas governor passes law requiring ID ...

Kansas governor passes law requiring ID to view acts of 'homosexuality' online, vetoes anti-LGBTQ+ bill

posted 13 days ago by Skavau (9421)
83 replies | jump to latest

https://www.advocate.com/politics/kansas-veto-age-verification-gender-affirming-care-abortion

"The governor of Kansas vetoed n anti-LGBTQ+ bill while simultaneously letting a law pass requiring ID to view "acts of homosexuality."

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly issued vetoes Friday against a ban on gender-affirming care for minors as well as two anti-abortion measures. She also let pass without her signature a law requiring age-verification to view content "harmful to minors."

Under Kansas criminal law, material "harmful to minors" includes nudity and "sexual content," which is defined in part as "acts of masturbation, homosexuality, or sexual intercourse."

The law, which will go into effect on July 1, requires users to share their government-issued identification in order to view adult content. Websites can be fined up to $10,000 for each instance a minor accesses their content, and parents are allowed to sue for damages of at least $50,000.

This could theoretically apply to family-friendly media with queer characters, LGBTQ+ charities and community resources, or even medical websites that include information on gender and sexuality. Such websites could soon be forced to block access to young users — cutting off their access to vital resources and information — or face hefty fines.

Kelly did not comment on the age-verification bill, but gave justification for each of her vetoes. She said that a ban on gender-affirming care for minors “tramples parental rights” and targets “a small group.” She vetoed a similar bill last year, and the legislature did not have the votes to override it."

[–] maixiu (523) 13 days ago

Most proscriptive laws target a small group. What a stupid cow.

But yeah, the Republicans are going to roll back the leftist insanity and not just serve as controlled opposition. Vote harder!

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

As I asked you in another thread:

Are you going to answer this?

LGBT people are celebrities. They're cast as characters in TV shows, films - written as characters in video games, and literature. There are LGBT themes in music. So what should happen there?

[–] maixiu (523) 13 days ago

You sound very entitled. I don't respond to demands.

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

I will continue to ask this every single time where it is relevant.

My suspicion currently, and I can't know otherwise because you refuse to clarify, is that you want the government to pass legislation to effectively criminalise LGBT presence in public life. ie: "LGBT propaganda" laws. That would "force them back into the closet".

Am I right?

[–] maixiu (523) 13 days ago

Ask away, my friend.

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

My suspicion currently, and I can't know otherwise because you refuse to clarify, is that you want the government to pass legislation to effectively criminalise LGBT presence in public life. ie: "LGBT propaganda" laws. That would "force them back into the closet".

Am I right?

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

Do you consider yourself in favour of civil liberties, small government?

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

What "leftist insanity" are you referring to here, exactly? LGBT people in teenage media? The utter absurdity that someone can, in your mind, log on freely to Netflix and watch 18+ korean horror with their kids with no stops but can't watch Heartstopper is peak clown world.

What happens, assuming the worst, when every streamer and mixed-media website geoblocks Kansas?

[–] Blade13 (636) 13 days ago

what part of this do you have a problem with?

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

What makes LGBT content or characters within a piece of media inherently so awful that people must be screened for their age before they watch it? How can this even be enforced?

[–] Blade13 (636) 13 days ago

So you want minors to have access to view homosexual acts? Am I understanding you correctly?

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

The content goes beyond just *homosexual acts*. The wording is unclear.

Pornographic and pornographic-adjacent media is already age-restricted.

[–] Blade13 (636) 13 days ago

Under Kansas criminal law, material "harmful to minors" includes nudity and "sexual content," which is defined in part as "acts of masturbation, homosexuality, or sexual intercourse."

This seems fairly clear to me.

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

If it said "Under Kansas criminal law, material "harmful to minors" includes nudity and "sexual content," which is defined in part as "acts of masturbation, or sexual intercourse."

then I'd agree

But "homosexuality" as its own category, at best, seems redundant if your only stated condition is objection to sexual content within media - as homosexual intercourse would still come under the umbrella of sexual intercourse.

Is two men kissing, or holding hands an "act of homosexuality" that would render a piece of media age-restricted?

[–] Blade13 (636) 13 days ago

Yes two men kissing and holding hands is/are an act of homosexuality. Children can watch that type of material once they're 18. Let them be kids for now.

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

>Yes two men kissing and holding hands is/are an act of homosexuality.

So it's not just about stopping sex, is it?

Kids and teenagers see straight people kiss in TV and film all the time. Why is that okay?

[–] Blade13 (636) 13 days ago

Why do children have to learn about homosexuality? They dont need to. You have to accept that there are many Christians out there and we dont want our children subjected to that.

I dont understand why that same governor didnt ban the "gender affirming care" that makes no sense because "gender affirming care" is much more dangerous/damaging to children/minors.

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

>Why do children have to learn about homosexuality?

First of all, we're not talking about "learning" homosexuality. This is entertainment media. And it goes to up to 18 year olds. We're not even talking about little kids here specifically. Why is it inappropriate for 15 year olds to consume tv, film, video games where a gay person is a character?

>They dont need to. You have to accept that there are a many Christians out there and we dont want our children subjected to that.

Then control their media. Don't dictate to others what they may or may not see.

Would you accept it if atheists wanted to ban all christian media for under 18s?

>I dont understand why that same governor didnt ban the "gender affirming care" that makes no sense because "gender affirming care" is much more dangerous/damaging to children/minors.

Yes, the Governor here was very stupid.

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

In addition, this raises other questions: What about LGBT health and advice groups that are sought out by teenagers? What about LGBT content creators on youtube? Neither of these groups share sexual or pornographic content.

[–] Heretic (303) 13 days ago

If they don't have anything to do with sexuality....then why do these sites exist?

Why wouldn't they just be health sites? What would make them LGBT sites specifically?

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

>If they don't have anything to do with sexuality....then why do these sites exist?

Sexuality in the sense of pornographic. They are health sites. Advice websites.

>Why wouldn't they just be health sites? What would make them LGBT sites specifically?

They're for LGBT teenagers struggling with their sexuality.

[–] maixiu (523) 13 days ago

Underneath all the gobbledygook, this is what it boils down to. The word salads help them mask their true intentions.

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

No, it is not. The wording of the passed legislation is vague and could criminalise all presence of LGBT characters and individuals in family friendly media.

Pornographic and pornographic-adjacent media is already age-restricted.

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

But the wider problem is how this is to be effectively enforced without violating people's privacy on mixed-media websites. Or how it applies to streaming platforms.

Or creating a chilling effect.

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

Hell, yeah, all porn should be illegal until prostitution is legalized. It is insane a more damaging version of prostitution with more victims is allowed when the act done private is not. The jew lawyers really did some jew lawyer magic to legalize this filth in the first place! Ban all porn!!

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

Kansas Law stipulates "acts of homosexuality" as a separate class. Which may not be pornographic.

Are two men kissing, or holding hands an "act of homosexuality" that would render a piece of media age-restricted?

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

Yes, fuck that shit, protect our kids from the gay mafia. We gave the gays to much rights and they abused it. Give em a finger, they shove ur whole hand up their ass...

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

This is entertainment media. And it goes to up to 18 year olds. We're not even talking about little kids here specifically. Why is it inappropriate for 15 year olds to consume tv, film, video games where a gay person is a character?

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

if there not old enough to drink or smoke ciggies then they should be protected from faggot propaganda. Simple as that, PROTECT OUR KIDS!!!!!

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

Should it also be illegal to depict people drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes in TV shows and films for under 18s?

Should it be illegal for a family member who is gay, for instance, to introduce their partner to a family members offspring?

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

sure why not, alcohol and smoking is just like faggotry. Its negative bullshit that doesn't have any positive influence on society

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

Should it be illegal for a family member who is gay, for instance, to introduce their partner to a family members offspring?

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

That is a gay question, I ain't wasting my time answering that

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

Don't care. Will ask again: Should it be illegal for a family member who is gay, for instance, to introduce their partner to a family members offspring?

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

It also sounds like you want a prudish, Iranian style anti-western culture where the state intervenes against culture.

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

Our culture is insulting fags, its the fake jew media propaganda that supports them. The streets hate fags...

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

Insult all you want. People may like or not like it.

But you don't get to control what other people do.

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

They can do what they wanna in there queer nightclubs on their own business. But they don't queer by themselves with their own kind, they queer in from of little kindergarteners. I used to be pro-fag back in the early 2000s when I thought all they wanted was to get married and cheat on their taxes, boy oh boy how naive I was. You can't give them any rights because simply don't deserve them. Marriage tax benefits exist in the first place to promote procreation and new taxpayers, fags can't procreate so entertaining them with marriage rights was counterproductive to a functional strong society. Now that they showed their true colors I see those inbreed mooslums were right all along by keep them in their place with their medieval society

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

>They can do what they wanna in there queer nightclubs on their own business. But they don't queer by themselves with their own kind, they queer in from of little kindergarteners.

No, we're not talking about kindergarteners here but people up to 18 years old. Plenty of teenagers happen to be LGBT.

>You can't give them any rights because simply don't deserve them.

What do you want to take away from them?

Are you suggesting mass slaughter? Say what you mean please.

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

The Muslims don't mass slaughter them They just killed a couple and keep the majority of them in the closet where they belong. You gotta keep them on their toes

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

Historically they absolutely do that. And they do kill LGBT people in some Muslim countries when they are caught.

How should LGBT people be "kept in the closet"? What are you calling for?

[–] Blade13 (636) 13 days ago

We dont need to know a 15 year olds sexuality neither does another 15 year old. They are watching tv/videos/movies for entertainment not to be indocrinated. Enough already.

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

You do realise that we already do learn these things by default in childrens media, right? If a mother and father is portrayed, their sexuality can be inferred. There are plenty of teen-orientated TV shows that deal with heterosexual relationships between teenagers.

Why are LGBT relationships, depicted similarly, any different?

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

because straight relationships are natural and normal, and create children. Fags are sick in the head, it is an mental illness, not something to be celebrated

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

You have given no argument for why this is the case. Or why being a minority constitutes being wrong.

But the more relevant point here is that you can depict LGBT people without sexualising them.

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

don't insult minorities by lumping in homosexual ass fucking queers into that group

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

By "minority" I specifically mean "a minority behaviour".

But the more relevant point here is that you can depict LGBT people without sexualising them.

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

Ass fucking is sick, the same way beastiality is sick. They are not a "minority"

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

They are by definition a minority in a statistical sense. Also plenty of straight people do anal, dude. and plenty of straight men find lesbians fucking hot

But the more relevant point here is that you can depict LGBT people without sexualising them.

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

Naw if your fucking your girl in the ass your already half a fag and should just switch over to the pink team. Jew porn is trying to normalize anal sex but there is nothing normal about it

lesbianism is only hot in fantasy and pornos, real lesbians look like larry the cable guy

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

>Naw if your fucking your girl in the ass your already half a fag and should just switch over to the pink team. Jew porn is trying to normalize anal sex but there is nothing normal about it

This is a minority opinion. People do not think this at all.

>lesbianism is only hot in fantasy and pornos, real lesbians look like larry the cable guy

And yet plenty of straight men find attractive lesbians sexy.

But the more relevant point here is that you can depict LGBT people without sexualising them.

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

attractive lesbians are a paradox, they don't exist. Lesbians you see in pornos are just drug addicted girls being exploited by jew media

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

No reason to believe this

[–] DMT (3824) 13 days ago

Look it up bud...

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

No reason to believe this

[–] Blade13 (636) 13 days ago

"Yes, fuck that shit, protect our kids from the gay mafia. We gave the gays to much rights and they abused it. Give em a finger, they shove ur whole hand up their ass..."

Yes, this. We've had it with the rainbow mafia.

[–] chilidoggg (13092) 11 days ago

I thought it was the "Velvet" Mafia... or the "Velcro" oh never mind.

[–] Heretic (303) 13 days ago

Good. We need more laws against pornography.

It has taken over our society and young people, having access to porn from a young age, have become nearly sterile form it.

Porn rewires the brain, causes ED at ages younger than most people think, causes aggressive sexual behavior, causes deviant behavior, makes sex worse, victimizes the performers under the lie of "empowering" them, and is just bad juju.

I see people looking at porn in public all the time. I miss the days when we were a much more Christian country and had dignity.

This could theoretically apply to family-friendly media with queer characters

Boogeyman aside, how can something possibly be family friendly and rely on explicitly describing sex acts?

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

>Good. We need more laws against pornography.

This isn't directly a law against pornography.

>Boogeyman aside, how can something possibly be family friendly and rely on explicitly describing sex acts?

Do family sitcoms that depict a mother and father and their kids rely on "explicitly describing sex acts"?

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to portray an LGBT person in media without showing them having sex?

[–] Filmtenk2 (3378) 13 days ago

"acts of masturbation, homosexuality, or sexual intercourse."

That could apply to straight porn too right? At least the masturbation & intercourse part.
Some red states like Texas are cracking down hard on access & requiring age verification.

If Kansas is going to enforce this law it should apply to all porn, not just one category.

Idk how effective these bans are but I do wonder about kids accessing porn online today. Porn is one of those things that sometimes I wish never existed bc in some ways it ruined me, not completely, but it definitely enacted a price.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7409) 13 days ago

Frankly I think you should be a registered user on any video website to view anything pornographic online.

[–] Skavau (9421) 13 days ago

This bill isn't just about pornographic content.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7409) 13 days ago

Oh. Yeah. It shouldn't be that way. It's every parents' job to choose what their kids watch. Not the government's.

[–] CraigC (6979) 12 days ago

Shielding children from internet porn, oh the horror. That's a groomer argument.

And you're seriously bent outta shape cuz somebody called you a pedo?

[–] Skavau (9421) 12 days ago

>Shielding children from internet porn, oh the horror. That's a groomer argument.

This bill isn't just about pornographic content.

I suggest you learn how to read you illiterate fuckface.

>And you're seriously bent outta shape cuz somebody called you a pedo?

Because it is and was a lie based purely on the fact that they don't like me. You think it's justifiable to lie about people, do you?

[–] CraigC (6979) 12 days ago

I can read just fine, I just don't click on links provided by liars.

Is it a lie? You're right here defending a child's access to pornographic material. That makes you a de facto groomer.

If children did not have cell phones, social media and ready access to all the filth of the internet, they wouldn't be as fucked up as they are.

You think it's okay to label people a racist just because they disagree with you?

[–] tvfan (8415) 12 days ago

You're right here defending a child's access to pornographic material. That makes you a de facto groomer.

Yeap, several on this forum have called him out on that numerous times but he continues to defend other groomers.

[–] Skavau (9421) 12 days ago

>Yeap, several on this forum have called him out on that numerous times but he continues to defend other groomers.

Quote me where I have specifically defended the right for children to access pornographic material you sack of shit fascist liar.

[–] CraigC (6979) 11 days ago

You've done it before and you're doing it right here by criticizing this law.

[–] Skavau (9421) 11 days ago

No, I am not. This law is NOT ABOUT PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL.

It refers to "homosexual acts". Do you consider two men holding hands or kissing a "homosexual act"? Both of these things can be found in kids/teen media as a normality in sitcoms right now by straight and homosexual couples.

[–] CraigC (6979) 11 days ago

Nobody wants to see that and children shouldn't. It's abnormal, deviant behavior.

[–] Skavau (9421) 11 days ago

So it's not about porn. It's about demonising and othering homosexuals in general. That's my point.

There's no difference in principle between a straight couple kissing, and a gay couple kissing.

And plenty of straight men fucking love seeing women kiss dude, what the fuck are you on about.

[–] CraigC (6979) 11 days ago

"No difference in principle"? What the fuck does that even mean? A) Gays kissing is deviant behavior and abnormal. B) It's fucking gross. C) It's not appropriate for children.

Straight, perverted "MEN". Not children.

You're a groomer by proxy.

I don't know what the law says and I don't care. It's got progressive retards like you in an uproar, so I just assume it's probably a good thing. I don't care either way for three reasons.

A) It's deviant behavior and abnormal and we never should've allowed it to become normalized because now it's out of control and being shoved down our throats at every turn. B) It's fucking gross. C) It's not appropriate for children.

[–] Skavau (9421) 11 days ago

>A) Gays kissing is deviant behavior and abnormal.

It's less common. Not sure what makes it "deviant".

>B) It's fucking gross.

This is completely subjective and you can't pass legislation based on such rubbish.

>C) It's not appropriate for children.

Why is it any less appropriate than a straight couple kissing? Should a gay uncle be banned from telling his 14 year old nephew that he is gay? Would it be unacceptable if he introduced his partner to them?

>You're a groomer by proxy.

How? Define "grooming".

>Straight, perverted "MEN". Not children.

Sure. But the notion that "nobody wants to see" same-sex kissing is contradicted by the entirety of pornographic and pornographic-adjacent content.

>A) It's deviant behavior and abnormal and we never should've allowed it to become normalized

How should it be undone? How should it be stopped from being normalised?

[–] Skavau (9421) 12 days ago

>I can read just fine, I just don't click on links provided by liars.

It refers to "homosexual acts". Do you consider two men holding hands or kissing a "homosexual act"? Both of these things can be found in kids/teen media as a normality in sitcoms right now by straight and homosexual couples.

>Is it a lie? You're right here defending a child's access to pornographic material. That makes you a de facto groomer.

No, I am not. This goes beyond pornographic content which is ALREADY AGE-RESTRICTED.

>You think it's okay to label people a racist just because they disagree with you?

No, I do not. When have I done that?

[–] CraigC (6979) 11 days ago

I don't live in Kansas. Don't you believe in democracy???

[–] Skavau (9421) 11 days ago

Yes I believe in democracy. Going to answer my questions?

[–] CraigC (6979) 11 days ago

You obviously don't believe that Kansans should be able to govern themselves.

[–] Skavau (9421) 11 days ago

I object to civil liberties intrusions. Should it be acceptable if Kansas voted to ban "acts of Christianity" from all under 18?

In addition, this wasn't achieved via a referendum. There's no evidence that this specific bill was ever on any party platform.

[–] CraigC (6979) 11 days ago

Protecting children from deviants and pedophiles is a "civil liberty intrusion"???

You're a groomer by proxy.

[–] Skavau (9421) 11 days ago

>Protecting children from deviants and pedophiles is a "civil liberty intrusion"???

Are two gay people holding hands in public a threat to children?

What about LGBT health-related sites for teenagers? Are they are threat to children?

This bill has nothing to do with pedophilia. Pedophilia is already against the law and covered.

>You're a groomer by proxy.

Define "grooming" in this context please.

[–] BeaSouth (2800) 11 days ago

Nothing has happened yet. I suspect the bill will mostly collapse under its own weight, and be quickly repealed or reformed in the next state elections. It’s not going to see thousands of people suddenly arrested.