Skip to comments.Court Wraps Video Games in First Amendment
Posted on 07/05/2011 1:50:26 PM PDT by Kaslin
The U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong in Brown v. Entertainment Merchant Association. This wasn't a First Amendment case, it was a parents' rights case -- and only Justice Clarence Thomas understood that.
The issue was a California law that would prohibit the $60 billion-a-year video game industry from selling hideously violent games to children without parental consent. Numerous other states and cities had unsuccessfully passed similar laws against selling violent video games to children, and now these games are wrapped nationwide by this recent Supreme Court ruling in the embrace of the Constitution.
The California law did not prohibit the video game industry from producing and selling these realistically violent games, and didn't stop parents from buying or allowing their kids to buy them. The law said that merchants could not bypass parents and sell directly to children without parental approval.
As Justice Thomas explained in his eloquent dissent, it is "absurd" to suggest that the First Amendment's "freedom of speech"' includes a right to speak to minors without going through the minors' parents. His dissent gives us a history lesson showing that the First Amendment was written in a society that assumed parents had absolute authority over the upbringing of their children, "including control over the books that children read."
The Court's majority couldn't see any difference between "The Divine Comedy" (assuming minors are capable of reading classic works of literature), or "Grimms' Fairy Tales," and teaching kids to role-play criminal acts such as torture and murder acted out on the screen in vivid color. Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that the court's decision now allows the industry to sell minors "games" that show victims "dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire and chopped into little pieces. ... Blood gushes, spatters, and pools."
Justices Alito and Roberts also stated, "There are games in which a player can take on the identity and re-enact the killings carried out by the perpetrators of the murders at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. ... There is a game in which players engage in 'ethnic cleansing' and can choose to gun down African-Americans, Latinos, or Jews."
There is a big difference between reading the printed page and role-playing criminal acts. Reading a book takes the words only as far as the reader's own imagination.
But video games blur the distinction between fantasy and reality, and train kids to be highly proficient murderers when they do go off the deep end. Brain research indicates that children's and teenagers' brains are still developing and may store violent images as real memories.
Mass murders committed by teenage boys or young adults are often left unexplained by the media. Many of these young killers were addicted to disturbingly violent video games, playing these violent games for hundreds of hours a year.
Virtually every school massacre can be traced to the young killers' addiction to violent video games. The video game industry reaps tens of billions of dollars in revenue and now even surpasses Hollywood in profits, revenues and influence.
It's obvious that this is not what George Washington and James Madison had in mind in guaranteeing free speech to Americans. The court has stretched the First Amendment beyond recognition to infringe on the rights of parents to protect their own children from exploitation.
This decision has left vulnerable the families whose parents lack the time or knowledge or resources to protect their own children from exploitation, and to safeguard them against an industry larger and more influential than Hollywood. This decision encourages a further coarsening and degradation of our culture.
Justice Thomas pointed out that the American people have always been able to pass laws to protect children and respect parental rights. Examples are laws restricting alcohol and pornography to minors.
Supremacist judges who think they can substitute their personal opinions for the Constitution and for duly enacted federal and state laws are a major part of our current culture war. It's overdue for the American people to recognize how the judiciary has grabbed power to decide culture issues that should be decided by the legislatures.
Five federal circuits have handed down decisions that reject parents' rights, upholding the court-created right of public schools to teach children whatever they want. These decisions involve teaching acceptance of homosexual behavior, Islamic ideology and practices, and evolution, and requiring schoolchildren to fill out questionnaires demanding answers to scores of nosy, leading questions about sex, illegal drugs and suicide.
The ball is now back in the court of the American people. They should study the actions of supremacist judges and roll back their mischief by demanding that they rule in favor of the U.S. Constitution as it was written and not as the judges wish it had been written.
Amen to that. I’ve been reading her “Eagle Forum’’ for years.
FABULOUS! Just fabulous...
For a lesson in the corruption of language, doublespeak and how it is used by Leftists to ‘frame,’ control and politicize issues to their benefit, no topic can hold a candle to homosexuality. So pervasive have ‘gay issues’ become that not even the lowly car commercial is safe from their influence. But before we go full-bore into how destructive the issue has become for society, lets establish a baseline.
Homosexuality is about sex. A particular kind of sex, IE sex with a person of the same gender, but ‘sex’ none the less. It is a simple definition and concept that anyone can understand: Males having sexual relations with other males and females having sex with other females. Here’s a topic that really ‘is’ (pun intended) just about sex!
Homosexuality has existed in the human and animal kingdoms since there have been humans and animals. There are those who argue it is genetic (best known recently as the Lady Gaga ‘born that way’ argument) and those who believe it to be based in environmental/societal concerns. All the major religions of the world consider it wrong/sinful for various reasons, while other belief systems take differing positions regarding the practice. Same goes for the general public where some people are accepting and others are not.
Regardless of personal or religious beliefs and an endless barrage of propaganda from all sides, there is one basic fact that seem to get lost in all the drama. Historically, the number of homosexuals in the world has always hovered in the single digits. There are some claims that it’s higher (usually proffered by agenda driven homosexual advocacy groups) but the most widely accepted figures put the total homosexual population traditionally around 3-5%.
From the earliest days of recorded history, homosexuality has been a known and recognized aspect of both the human condition and society at large. The Bible spoke against it, ancient Greece and Rome openly accepted it, Victorians publicly suppressed but privately condoned it and modern Hollywood/the mainstream media glamourize and promote it across the globe. Christians believe homosexuals can ‘go straight’ if they choose to and Muslims just kill them outright, aside for their strangely contradictory and historical fondness for ‘dancing boys’ (read that ‘male child sexual abuse victims’)of course.
So what’s the problem? What two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of greater society’s business right? Here’s the problem...
The love that dares not speak it’s name refuses to shut up and this time Andrew Klavan has nothing to do with it.
Once upon a time, homosexuals just wanted to be left alone to do the voodoo that they do. By and large greater society was pretty accommodating of that arrangement and grew more so over time. So called ‘sodomy laws’ were stricken from the books. Open hostility, both verbal and physical, lessened by the year. Homosexuals went about their public business just like Mr. and Mrs. Straight and many began to ‘come out of the closet.’
No, the path wasn’t all wine and roses and no, not everyone was OK with ‘open’ gays in society as a whole. However when you only constitute 5% of the population it is not logical or rational to expect the other 95% to suddenly abandon all their core beliefs and opinions and just adopt, or even accept yours wholesale. When you constitute 5% of the population, it is not rational to expect that society, structured around a 95% straight population from the very inception of ‘society’ as a concept, will suddenly rearrange itself to accommodate you. Except that’s exactly what happened and that’s where the problem really began.
Lets talk about sex, baby (with apologies to Salt n’ Peppa)!
The core concept of this book, the lack of critical thought in modern society, is also the main reason that ‘homosexual issues’ have reached the point that they have and until society as a whole starts critically thinking about the entire subject, matters will only grow more convoluted. Along with critical thought, frank and rational discussion on the matter has likewise been non-existent. But why? Read on... but remember Rule 1. Words mean things whether a Leftist wants them to or not.
The biggest hindrance to critical thought by society at large centers around the way people have been programmed by books, articles, music, TV shows and movies to ‘think’ about homosexuality. The fact is, homosexuality is not two men driving down the Pacific Coast Highway in a new convertible with the top down. It’s not two women sitting at a cafe overlooking the Mediterranean. It’s not some kid with multi-colored hair wearing ‘skinny jeans’ and a black t-shirt texting his ‘boyfriend’ with a look of longing on his face or any of the thousands of images AstroTurfed across the media to show everyone how ‘normal’ it is...See? They’re just like us! We do those things too!
How embracing of homosexuality would the public be if those TV commercials went on a little longer to show the literal homosexuality. Think Car Company X would make a lot of sales from the straight world showing Biff and Brad laid out across that big, expensive hood in a 69? Think the ‘Drink-a-lotta Coffie Company’ will see profits soar with images of Ellen fisting Rosie while she’s bent over the balcony rail? Or how about when Color-kid’s ‘boyfriend’ gets that text message saying the AIDS test came back positive?
As we established at the outset, Homosexuality is about one thing and only one thing: sex between members of the same gender. That’s it. When one thinks about the subject critically, it follows that you cannot have homosexuality without the sex. A so-called ‘homosexual’ can think and have fantasies about homosexual sex all he or she likes like but until they actually ‘have’ homosexual sex, they are merely celibate. Said person can be attracted to a same-gender person with a passion rivaling that of Rhett Butler and Scarlet O’Harah, but until they actually physically participate in a sexual act with a same-gendered person, they are celibate with an active imagination.
This of course assumes that the person has not had sex with a person of the opposite gender. In that case they are heterosexual with a fantasy about the same sex. And what of ‘romantic feelings’ towards someone of the opposite sex? A person may have all the romantic feelings toward a person of the same sex they like. Again, without physical sex, you still have celibacy. Call it unrequited love, call it whatever textbook or PC term you wish, but without the physical sexual component you can’t honestly call it homosexuality. Words mean things.
Yes, I can imagine what you are thinking. Aside from thinking I’m nuts, you are also wondering how I can make such claims when the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association and every other official ‘support group’ group in the world says the exact opposite? First things first. Let me ask you the following and think critically before you answer because you are in fact about to answer your own question. Yes, it’s long winded but The Orwellian Ministry of Homosexual Love wasn’t built in a day either.
Example 1: All your life you have wanted to be and suddenly decide that because of this desire that you are now in fact an astronaut. You have never flown in a plane, don’t have a degree in aeronautics, astrophysics or any other degree that would help qualify you to be an astronaut. You are deathly afraid of heights. You apply to NASA and are rejected. The Russians or China won’t take you either, but you still say that you are an astronaut. Are you an Astronaut?
Example 2: Since the time you went to a museum at age 3 you have had an overwhelming desire to be a famous painter whose works are better than those of DiVinci, Michelangelo and Picasso. You spend your childhood painting all manner of pictures, get enrolled in a special high school for the arts, then obtain a masters degree later in life. You have put every fiber of your being into being a greater artist than the classical masters. At your first public show the critics roundly pan your work and the public thinks they have better art hanging on their refrigerator doors. Yet you claim they are all blind and can’t appreciate true greatness. Over the years your work only gets worse. Are you the greatest artist of all time?
Example 3: You always had a great interest in books and have read hundreds. One day a friend says you should write one of your own. Thinking it a great idea you get a computer, download a word processor and begin the next great American novel. Day after day you write, cut, write something different, cut, write more and cut. Your family and friends offer you constant encouragement and believe in what you are doing. This goes on for several years with you writing, erasing, getting a different idea and writing something else over and over, making no real progress. Have you written a book?
Example 4: Times are tough in the Obama economy and your family, like many others is having to do without a lot since you got laid off. As the days go by with no hope that you’ll be rehired at your old job and rejection letters pile up from all the resumes you continue to send out, you begin to grow desperate. Then your daughter is diagnosed with a serious disease that will require ongoing treatment, lots of medications and be very expensive but you have no insurance. You feel the weight of the world on you and the stress and desperation grow by the day. Soon you begin thinking about pursuing illegal activities to get money. One day a friend says you can make a lot of money quickly by selling Meth but you aren’t sure you want to break the law. You meet him at his house where a 2 bound bag of whiteish powder sits on a table. He tells you to take it and will give you 30% profit on the sale. Are you a drug dealer?
OK class, lets take this one at a time.
Example 1: Every little kid wants to be an astronaut some day, or at least they used to. But without the skills, training and physical/mental ability to be an astronaut; to say nothing of having a job at a space agency, you are not an astronaut. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. All the desire in the world will not make it so.
Example 2: In this example you displayed tremendous dedication and did everything within your power to realize your dream, but it wasn’t to be. Again, ‘desire’ was a key factor here allowing you to spend years chasing your dream, but while people may have appreciated your dedication, they hated your art for whatever reason. Because of that, you will never be the greatest artist in the world.
Example 3: Desire? Check. Dedication? Check. Supportive friends and family? Check. Ability to finish the job? Nope. For whatever reason you were unable to bring your ideas together. You did everything right and had all the support in the world, but ultimately did not finish a complete book.
Example 4: Intense pressure the likes of which you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy and it kept getting worse as the days went by. Suddenly you are presented with an answer that could quickly and easily solve your current problems but may open you up to even more. Standing at that table you are not yet a drug dealer because of the simple fact that you have not yet sold any drugs. You know about it, thought about it, agonized over it, ‘questioned’ whether or not you should do it, even taken steps toward actually doing it. But despite all that, you still haven’t actually ‘done it.’
If you have never planted a seed or trimmed a bush regardless of how much you thought about doing it, are you a gardener?
If you never stepped foot on a boat regardless of how many books you read about it or how many Caribbean Island fantasies you’ve had, are you a sailor?
If you have listened to 1,000 Heavy Metal CDs and are real good at ‘Guitar Hero’ on the Playstation 3, but never actually performed music on a real instrument or have an enormous fanbase, are you a rock star?
Since you can be none of these widely varied things based on just your ‘questioning, feelings and desire,’ regardless of how strong they or the support of friends and family may be, without also having/doing/etc. the physical component relevant to each of them; the completed book; the job at NASA and associated degrees; actual hands-on work in a garden or the actual sale of Meth; why on earth is it logical, rational or realistic to think that you can be a homosexual without the sex? You can’t fantasize or magically think your way into employment, fame, a college degree or anything else short of a straight jacket. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. Even if you really really really want it to be and get sexually aroused thinking about it.
Now lets back up a bit and discuss the ‘logical and rational’ aspects of 95% vs. 5%. In what other cases would society completely restructure to satisfy the desires, not ‘rights,’ (because neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution accounts for a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g based on sex...) ‘desires’ or ‘fantasies’ of such a small minority?
There is certainly more than 5% of the population living together whether male/male, female/female or male/female in a platonic manner to cut costs, due to common interests, jobs etc. Do they have a ‘right’ to tax breaks because they may get along really really really well? How about if they are ‘friends with benefits?’ Should that then make a difference?
Plenty of heterosexual couples participate in all manner of ‘alternative’ sex practices. Should we grant them special rights and privileges because Mary likes to dress up in thigh-high leather boots and John wants her to spank him with a riding crop? Should they be taxed any differently than Sam and Sue next door who only fly their freak flag missionary-style in the dark? How about Jean down the block who has a rather large assortment of battery powered devices to keep her company. Should she have a different set of laws governing her that Father Chris across the street who is the very model of the sexless priest?
Or how about this. Is it logical or rational to have a special set of rules and laws to govern people who scrapbook? How about collecting shoes? Fishermen? Hunters? Motorcycle enthusiasts? Dog lovers? Each of these groups has ‘desires’ and ‘strong feelings’ for their niche in question. Billy has loved dogs all his life and Paul spends hours in the garage fawning over his motorcycle. They are all heavily ‘emotionally invested’ in their particular subjects and each constitute more than 5% of the population so what’s the difference between all these people and homosexuals when it comes to special rights and privileges?
The difference has become known as ‘the homosexual lobby.’
Have you ever once seen or heard of Billy, Paul, Jean, Sam or Mary marching in the streets demanding special rights to accommodate their sexual/non-sexual even or electro-sexual preferences? No. In fact, Father Chris is probably hearing confession from John because while Mary really gets into the whole BDSM thing, he has some guilt to work out. He certainly isn’t dressed up in assless pants and nipple clamps marching round the town square singing I’m here, I drink beer and I want you to spank me.
Straights march in parades to Celebrate the 4th of July, to honor veterans, or to bring attention to breast cancer. Yes, homosexuals participate in them too and more power to them. The difference is that there are no sex-based straight parades. Ever hear of a ‘Straight Pride’ parade? No. But there are ‘Homosexual Pride’ parades in every major and even smaller cities around the globe to bring attention to... what exactly? Homosexual ‘rights?’ Homosexuals do not Constitutionally have any different or special rights than straights do so that can’t be it. ‘Homosexual issues’ or ‘Homosexual ‘Pride’ itself?
Now in the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that the first time I had sex I was damn proud of myself and although I may have felt like having a parade down Main Street to memorialize the experience, common sense and the fact that I probably couldn’t get a permit won the day, thus no parade was held. Sadly, the homosexual ‘community’ revels in their parades and is very proud to let you, your 95-year-old grandmother and your 5 year-old children know that they are Here, Queer and all us straight types need to Get used to it.
Yes, Yes and No.
Since 95% of the population really isn’t interested in how deeply homosexuals can find their collective way into the Out’ door, or what small and fuzzy animals they may find along the way, the homosexual lobby has resorted to (tell me where you’ve heard this one before) ‘hate crimes’ legislation and ‘hate speech’ laws to force the straights of the world to get used to it.
Whatever happened to claims of We just want to love who we want to love? Obviously that was an outright lie and the perfect emotionally argued way to get the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. In a masterfully played example of incrementalism, we now have the whole camel in our 95% collective lap. Despite making decades of progress in a matter of years thanks to the non-stop media barrage of ‘It’s OK’ messaging throughout the media and school curriculum, the homosexual lobby had to have everything they wanted their way ‘now.’
Most of us in the straight world really have no interest in listening to people running around like a bunch of hormonal teenagers screaming about who, what, where, when, why and how they’re gettin’ it on. Because remember, that’s the bottom line here. The sex itself.
Hate crimes, AIDS and propaganda pieces.
As we have discussed, from a Constitutional standpoint, there is equal protection under the law, so logically, how can it follow that a straight person assaulting a homosexual should receive a different punishment than a homosexual attacking a straight person? Any such law is obviously unconstitutional. Yet hate crimes laws pertaining to homosexuals have been passed across the country. Put on your critical thinking caps and ponder the following statements:
Your Honor, I:
assaulted him/her because he/she wears funny clothes!
2: assaulted him/her because he/she drives a blue car!
3: assaulted him/her because he/she likes reading classic works of literature!
4: assaulted him/her because he/she likes music that I don’t!
5: assaulted him/her because he/she smells bad!
6: assaulted him/her because he/she is a flaming homo!
Now, ask yourself:
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s choice of style?
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s choice of car color?
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s choice of reading material?
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s taste in music?
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s lack of hygiene?
Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s choice in sex practices?
Is their any functional difference in assaulting a person because he smells bad and assaulting them over private (since sex in public of any type is illegal) sex practices? In each example person the person is just as injured, both physically and mentally.
In rebutting this argument, the homosexual often pulls a unique version of the race card claiming that the argument is meaningless and that homosexuals are like blacks in the 60s fighting for ‘equality.’
First, any logical argument that can be presented is not ‘meaningless.’ Claiming it is and refusing to prove otherwise merely dodges the issue. Second, Blacks cannot change their skin color (Michael Jackson jokes aside) but a ‘homosexual’ can be celibate or partake in heterosexual sex. Third, Civil rights legislation had nothing to do with the sex practices of blacks in America. Rosa Parks didn’t sit at the front of the bus, nor was MLK assassinated because they wanted their choices in the bedroom to grant them tax breaks or other special privileges and to compare homosexual ‘rights’ to the fight for equality by black Americans is not only a false choice but patently offensive to everyone who believes in racial equality. ‘Homosexual’ is not a race. It is a sex practice. Nothing more.
Taking a trip down a liberal slippery slope to madness, what if a straight black man assaults a homosexual white man? What if a straight white man assaults a homosexual black man? How about a straight white man assaulting another straight white man? How about two homosexual black men or two homosexual white men? How about a woman of undetermined sexuality assaulting a straight black man and a homosexual white man at the same time?
Hate crime laws by their existence require that the value of one ‘class’ of person must have a greater value than another. So which is it? Are gay black men more valuable in the eyes of the law than a straight white man? Or is a straight white woman held in higher regard than a straight black man? Or any other combination?
Special rights and health concerns
When the AIDS epidemic began to make national news in the 1980s, homosexual advocacy groups began their rise to power by attacking the Reagan administration (who knew only slightly less about AIDS than the doctors and researchers of the time) claiming that it was not a ‘homosexual disease’ and that heterosexuals were equally at risk. Nearly 30 years later, doctors and researchers are still trying to get a handle on the disease despite hundreds of billions of dollars in research ironically the vast majority of worldwide funding materializing from ‘heartless’ ‘homosexual hating,’ ‘Bible thumping’ Republican presidents and administrations. Even liberal icon Bono from the rock group U2 admitted President GW Bush did more for the cause of fighting AIDS in Africa than anyone.
What did not materialize however was a widespread infection of the heterosexual population. Thanks to all that research, we know know that there are 3 main vectors to contract AIDS. Blood to blood/bodily fluid contact with an infected person; transfusion/transplant with an infected blood/organ supply; and high-risk behavior (homosexual anal/oral sex and sharing IV drug needles). The odds of a heterosexual contracting AIDS from another heterosexual when neither has participated in the aforementioned ‘high risk’ behavior or received a blood transfusion is statistically zero.
This brings up some questions that require critical thought and frank discussion.
Why then do homosexually lobby claims that ‘it’s not a homosexual disease’ persist? Why are they given any credence when years of medical research, facts and statistics prove the exact polar opposite?
Since AIDS is a killer disease contracted mainly through high risk homosexual sex, why is homosexuality, the primary means of passing along the infection, promoted as a perfectly acceptable ‘lifestyle choice’ in the media and more importantly to schoolchildren? What manner of medical ethics can possibly justify it?
In 2011 a straight heterosexual male was diagnosed with AIDS following an organ transplant from a donor who had tested negative weeks prior to the transplant procedure, then had homosexual sex between the test and the actual transplant. In the 80s, Ryan White, a young American boy was infected with AIDS and died following a blood transfusion. Between the two events, many heterosexuals across the globe contracted, now suffer from, or have died due to AIDS infected blood donated by homosexuals. Why are liberal, Leftist and homosexual advocacy groups actively fighting (and winning in court) the ‘right’ for homosexuals to donate blood when the disease can take months or in some cases even years to show up on blood tests?
Many such questions should be not only asked but discussed vigorously in the public forum and the halls of government. But they are paid lip service at best and then quietly dropped with no action short of calls for better testing. Why? Once again the answer can be found in the propaganda spread by the homosexual lobby and it’s cries of ‘homophobia.’
The actual definition of a phobia is a ‘fear.’ Ergo ‘homophobia’ literally means ‘fear of the same’ or ‘fear of sameness.’ The homosexual lobby has perverted this word to mean ‘hatred or discrimination toward homosexuals’ along with ‘fear of homosexuals’. But remember, words mean things. Again, lets address the issue critically.
Should people of all sexual preferences fear a potentially deadly blood supply created because legislators fear being branded ‘homophobic?’ More on this in a bit.
Should parents abandon their responsibility to protect their children from a potentially life-ending disease to bestow protective ‘rights’ on the very people who are factually, medically, statistically and mostly responsible for spreading that disease?
Should those parents and others who speak against the main method of transfer of a potentially life-ending disease be prosecuted under hate crimes legislation because the vast majority people factually, medically, statistically and mostly responsible for spreading that disease get their feelings hurt by it?
These and in truth ‘any’ discussion that does not cast homosexuals, homosexual practices or homosexual (insert damn near anything here) is intermediately pounced upon by the homosexual lobby as a aforementioned act of homophobia, bigotry and intolerance. Is there a logical reason to assume that 95% of the population ‘hates’ homosexuals? No. Is there a logical reason to believe that 95% of the population is bigoted toward homosexuals? No. Is there a logical reason to believe that by encouraging an increase in high risk homosexual sex, even when condoms are employed, that AIDS is somehow less dangerous? No more so than jumping out of an aircraft with a parachute that has a known failure to open rate of several percent, depending on make and model.
Oh? You say that’s a stupid argument? Really? How many homosexuals if handed a parachute and told, Hey Bill, there’s about a 9% chance that this thing won’t open and you’re gonna impact the ground at well over 100 miles per hour. It’s already happened thousands of times and there’s a lot of dead people. You are certainly going to die it the chute malfunctions, would strap it on and take the dive?
The only difference here is that the government would shut down the parachute manufacturer and sue theme into oblivion, while in real life the government sues the guy who gives the warning about the danger under discrimination and hate crime statutes.
Unfortunately this isn’t a poorly chosen joke. As we speak people around the world really are sued and/or prosecuted for hate speech because they tell the truth about the dangers of homosexual sex and AIDS.
In the months following the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, chaplains have been instructed to ‘get right’ with homosexual rights and abandon their religious beliefs and teachings concerning homosexuality or ‘get out.’ Likewise, soldiers regardless of rank are being ‘reeducated’ to accept it or join the Chaplains in the unemployment line. (Side note: Imagine the literal billions of dollars worth of leadership, training and experience have just been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.) Will Muslims soldiers and their Imams get a waiver due to their ‘strongly held’ religious beliefs? Many Christians and their lawyers are waiting for that answer as the Obama has been strangely silent regarding that particular subject.
Pedobear, Chickenhawks and the left Wing Animal Farm
As always, put on your critical thinking caps. Ponder the following intellectually and look beyond the words themselves into the concepts they represent and to the logical conclusions they lead.
Here’s another point that supporters of the homosexual agenda try to obfuscate at every opportunity. Pedophilia. When you think of a pedophile what image pops into your mind? A man molesting a young boy.
BUTBUTBUT!! That’s a stereotype! screams the Left. Women do it too!
Sure they do. Sadly. And women molest young girls as well, just like men. But there’s a very good reason that people first think ‘man/boy sex’ when pedophilia is mentioned. That’s because the majority of pedophiles are adult men sexually molesting ‘below the age of consent’ males. And that, good reader, is homosexual sex.
The Left has gone to great lengths to try playing down the very obvious fact that man/boy sex is an act of homosexuality, but it is. And oxymoronically they do so while simultaneously supporting groups like NAMBLA, AKA the North American Man Boy Love Association and attempting to mainstream them into greater society.
Looking through history, in both literature and day to day reality, the ‘grooming’ of young boys by homosexual men isn’t something ‘hidden.’ Homosexuals have been very open about it whether it was in widespread Roman ‘bath house culture’ (which continues to this day in larger cities throughout the world) or some ‘chickenhawk’ cruising the Tenderloin District last weekend in San Francisco. Further, you will note that the term ‘chickenhawk’ itself comes from the homosexual community and describes adult homosexual men who prefer young boys as sex partners.
Look at the innuendo of the phenomenon spammed out of Hollywood since at least the 60s. Perhaps the most well known example of which is the Batman television series. The idea of a wealthy bachelor taking in an orphaned boy, running around in spandex tights and sharing their adventures is enough to make anyone question Bruce Wayne’s ulterior motives, but if you look back to the original DC Comics that spawned the TV series, the many versions of the Batman comic books were filled with sexual innuendo themselves.
Just who do you think the whole concept of the well-known Saturday Night Live skit Ace and Gary, The Ambiguously Gay Duo was based on...and why? Today, the Internet is filled with Batman/Robin sexual references and parody’s. Robin has become a homosexual icon. Again, why? It sure isn’t because he represents christian heterosexual values in the minds of his ‘fans.’
And where is all this coming from?
What homosexual agenda?
Despite denial that existed for decades spewing from every media and educational outlet available homosexual activists were often proven to be liars with their own words. Denial of their goals became much harder with the publication of the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
The following are excerpts taken from After The Ball. Think critically and ponder what they mean and how they apply and effect yourself, your family and the society we live in. Once again, don’t just take my comments at face value. Think for yourself and critically analyze what the words of homosexual activists really imply...and where their implementation will eventually lead.
1)The homosexual agenda can succeed by conversion of the average Americans emotions, mind, and will, through, a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda to the nation via media (page 153);
A planned psychological attack? What good and right thing in all of creation has ever required a planned psychological attack to achieve it’s goal? Propaganda does not rely on factual data. Propaganda relies solely on whatever means the propagandist wishes to deploy in order to bring about his or her ends. To convert in this context implies that the structure of civilized society since it’s inception has been ‘wrong’ and that homosexuality is ‘right’.
3)Propaganda can be unabashedly subjective and one-sided, there is nothing wrong with this (page 163);
In short, the ends justify the means and a lie is completely acceptable method to achieve those ends. Now ponder critically all the ways and means the homosexual lobby chooses to achieve their goals.
4)Homosexual agenda can succeed by desensitization achieved by lowering the intensity of anti-gay emotional reactions to a level of sheer indifference (page 153);
5)All speech that is opposing homosexual behavior should be banned under clear and present danger to public order (page 101)
6)All and any news or media coverage that is presents homosexual in negative form is prejudiced and invalid (page 54);
7)Everyone comes out must be prepped by a media campaign carefully crafted, repeatedly displayed mass-media images of gays (page 169);
8)Employ images that desensitize, jam, and/or convert on an emotional level (page 173);
9)Gain access to the kinds of public media that would automatically confer legitimacy upon these messages and sponsors (page 173)
10) Stage candid interviews with gays who appear as solid citizens. Subjects in commercials should be interviewed alone, not with their lovers (for now) (page 247);
11) Most people derive their impressions of the world through the national media (page 250);
12) The media campaign will reach straights on an emotional level, casting gays as societys victims and inviting straights to be their protectors (page 187);
13) We like television because its the most graphic and intrusive medium for our message (page 201)
14)Over the long-term, television and magazines are probably the media of choice (page 204);
15)Ads must manage to get the word gay into the headline or tagline (page 207);
16)Each message should tap public sentiment, patriotic, or otherwise, and drill an unimpeachable agreeable proposition into the mainstreams head (page 208);
17)Several years down the road, our tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to mainstream media (page 213)
18)In TV and print, images of victimizers can be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the bracket technique (page 190);
19)The more people who appear to practice homosexuality, and the more innate it appears to be, the less abnormal and objectionable, and the more legitimate it will seem (which is why it is important to maintain claims to 10% of the population)(page 217)
20)Ambivalent skeptics are our most promising targets (page 176)
21)Infer and speculate that famous historical figures were gay for two reasons: first, they are dead as a door nail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel; (page 188)
Here in a nutshell is the basis behind every homosexual character in a book, magazine, on TV or on the internet. Greater society has been undergoing this ‘desensitization’ with every commercial featuring a gay couple, show featuring a homosexual character, or ‘public service announcement’ promoting the ‘normalcy’ of the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ while avoiding entirely discussion or depictions of actual gay sex the core part of ‘homosexuality.
5)Homosexual agenda can succeed by jamming and confusing adversaries, so as to block or counteract the rewarding of prejudice (page 153)
Jamming or confusing adversaries is doublespeak for shouting down and demonizing any speech, depiction or analysis of homosexuality, painting it with the broad brush of ‘prejudice.’
6)Heterosexuals dislike homosexuals on fundamentally emotional, not intellectual grounds (page 166)
20)It is acceptable to call people Homophobic or Homohaters if they do not agree 100% with homosexual views, opinions, or behavior. (page xxiii)
This is an example of the above ‘jamming. Classic projection on the part of the writer. This pigeonholes any opposition again into the box of prejudice and allows for no possibility that many people may be opposed not to the private practice of homosexuality, but are opposed to the ‘special rights’ advocacy and demands of the homosexual lobby itself... among thousands of other possibilities. Thus any and all opposition is silenced.
7)Desensitizing is our recipe for converting ambivalent skeptics;
History buffs will note the successful effect of desensitization by different agenda driven organizations and groups on 1030s era Germany and Japan, 1900s Russia, 1960s-70s Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, China and even 1800s America.
8)Make victimizers look bad by linking to Nazi horror while helping straights to see gays as victims and feel protective towards them (page 221);
Again, classic projection when weighed against the above ‘recipe.’ Liberals always accuse their opposition of what they themselves are doing.
9)The Nazi story of pink triangle as a symbol of victimization should be a sufficient opening wedge into the vilification of our enemies (page 190);
History shows that the Nazi leadership was filled with homosexuals who scapegoated their ‘brethren’ to use them as a propaganda tool. The Homosexual lobby also attempts to link their ‘persecution’ to the Jewish holocaust as if a sex practice is equal to one of the world’s great religions and the basis of all Christianity.
10)Show grisly victimization of gays and demand that readers identify themselves with either social tolerance or gruesome cruelty;
Stories of homosexuals beaten by straight people tend to leave out the genesis of the assault whole emphasizing the result of the freely taken action by the homosexual involved.
Growing up in a small logging town filled with burly lumberjacks, I remember an incident during hunting season when a former high-school classmate who was both gay and a more than ‘passable’ cross-dresser ‘picked up’ an unknowing hunter from another town in a local bar. Upon discovering that the object of his lust was ‘similarly equipped’ to himself, the hunter took great umbrage to being so tricked and proceeded to assault the cross-dresser into a state of medical emergency.
Word of the event, while never making it to the papers, spread throughout a significant area of the state through the homosexual community and shortly thereafter cries of ‘Violence toward homosexuals must end!’ made the rounds. Not one homosexual stepped forward and admitted that the cross-dresser had instigated the physical assault through his own ‘sexual assault’ of a straight person unwilling to participate knowingly in homosexual sex. This is one example. There are thousands more.
11)Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
Latent homosexuality is a term coined by the homosexual lobby to attempt to divert attention from the fact that the person involved is not actually homosexual. This is another example of demonizing any opposed to the homosexual agenda as ‘homophobic,’ a word and concept covered earlier.
12)Jam people by pointing out that its inconsistent with the readers belief in the value of love between individuals (page 233);
Also covered earlier, ‘Love’ does not require sex, or in this case ‘homosexual sex.’ Likewise, heterosexual or homosexual sex do not require ‘Love.’ Again, we see a twisting of the meaning of words and an attempt to equate two very different things.
13)AIDS epidemic should be exploited to increase attention and sympathy as victimized minority.(page xxv)
As discussed earlier, the practical and very real result of this dictate is a contaminated blood supply, dead children/adults and the spread of a plague in order to gain ‘sympathy for the practicioners of homosexual sex.
14) We argue that for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence (page 184);
In short, this is a fancy way of saying ignore the evidence and believe a lie that we tell to benefit us. There is no other logical way to read it.
15)Muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalization that justify religious opposition this entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections (page 179);
16)16) Portray opposing churches as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the time and with the latest findings of psychology (page 179);
17)31) All sexual morality should be abolished (pages 64 to 67);
18)34) Opposition to homosexual marriages is based on family nostalgia and sexual guilt based on religious/Victorian values (page 92)
As stated previously, religion is at the core of many people’s rejection of the homosexual agenda, so it stands to reason the homosexual community would either try to destroy it, convert it, or co-opt it. Since the homosexual community comprises at best 5% of the total population and significantly less when it comes to adult, activist homosexuals, they are up against an insurmountable wall in attempting to destroy religion. So they have embarked on a campaign to instil homosexual and homosexual pastors in churches throughout the world who preach a Gospel significantly different to that found in the King James or other historic Bible.
Much like they have accomplished with government, this tactic allows them to corrupt religious teaching that has been in effect for over 2,000 years, replace it with a version that now paints them as ‘normal’ and ‘regular members of the religious and secular communities and gives them a platform to spread their agenda. This successful subterfuge (read that gross lie) has resulted in a corruption of every Christian/Jewish denomination and the ‘conversion of many to the ‘It’s OK to be gay school of thought. It has also made inroads into Mid-East and South-East Asian religions as well, but not to the extent of their main target, Christianity.
17)Jam the self-righteous pride by linking to a disreputable hate group (page 235);
18)Gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation (page 185);
23)Heterosexuals are like Aryans and people who are against homosexual behavior are Nazis and Clansman.
24) Homosexual persecution is identical to Jewish persecution (page 57, 62, );
25) Homosexual persecution is identical racial prejudice to Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (inferring inborn) (page 62, 73);
26) Associate gay cause with talk about racism, sexism, militarism, poverty, and all the conditions that oppress the unempowered. (page 181)
27) Project gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers (page 183);
Human Rights groups have joined as active and willing participants in the Homosexual agenda by classifying opposition to homosexuality as a hate crime. Groups like the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center have attempted to equate homosexuality with civil rights as previously discussed. Note however that they don’t attempt to ‘accurately’ link opposition to hate groups, just to link it regardless as a part of their campaign to guide the public’s view. Again, as this is deceitful propaganda done knowingly, what does this say about the homosexual agenda, it’s promoters and supporters?
18)The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome (page 178);
Wear your opponent down until they give in. The classic defense when the facts do not support your position. Again, note the sheer volume of homosexual propaganda in the news/entertainment media, music, school curriculum, religion and office discussion you encounter in the average day. Ask yourself if any other sex practice would get such a magnitude of discussion.
Picture the volume of coverage the forums in which it is presented, including your children’s kindergarten class, concerning:
Bestiality, Masturbation, Necrophilia, Bondage and Discipline, Corpophagia/’water-sports,’ Group Sex, Public heterosexual sex, Pony Play, Foot fetishes, Rubber and Latex fetishes, or any of the hundreds of sub-categories and variants.
So ask yourself why is it that this one particular sex practice gets all the attention? Put aside your uncomfortable reaction to the subject matter for a moment and really think critically about why it’s acceptable as a male to have a water cooler discussion in the workplace about the lesbian glorification show The L-Word with a female co-worker, but discussing watching someone masturbate or the best way to mount or receive oral sex from a Pit-Bull is grounds for immediate termination, a lawsuit against the company and the destruction of your personal reputation?
They each involve sex practices. Take away the lesbian aspect and the L-Word is a show about celibate friends. Discussing a show about taking part in a particular sex practice has no functional difference than discussing a hardcore porno about, or participating in any other sex practice.
21)A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
22)Mustachioed leather men, drag queens, and bull dykes should not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations (until later after wide acceptance) (page 183);
23)Associate and link gays to good causes and non-controversial activities (page 219);
24)In time we see no reason why more and more diversity should not be introduced into the projected image (i.e., drag queens, pedophiles, etc.) (page 186);
25)Show others accepting gays and homosexuals (page 241);
This is referred to as biased journalism in the news reporting and advocacy in any other realm. Refer back to the discussion on how far a car company would get with a media campaign featuring two men having homosexual sex on a car hood.
Now ask yourself why the homosexual lobby should be allowed free reign to spread admittedly false and misleading propaganda while denying the freedom to distribute honest, factual data to those who oppose them? Critically ponder in what other realm of civilized society is this acceptable, much less supported and encouraged? And again, what does it say about people willingly taking part?
29)American opposition is based solely on prejudiced, outdated, and hypocritical Victorian morals (page 51)
30)All scientific/medical arguments to prevent 1973 APA/AMA removal from disorder list were rooted in cultural prejudice, medieval knowledge of science/medicine, and misinformation.
Isn’t it funny that for thousands of years homosexuality was considered a mental disorder/sexual deviance, but when the Communist/ Liberal Left took control of the halls of academia and openly allowed homosexuals to participate in the decision to remove homosexuality from the list that...shock and surprise, homosexuality was removed from the list and then promoted as a normal, even desirable activity? Especially when the Communist Party openly called for the ‘normalization’ of homosexuality as a stepping stone on the path to destroying America and made it an official part of it’s platform?
Ant critical look at this particular situation leads to one conclusion.
27)Two-thirds of all boys have rudimentary homosexual experiences (inferring most teenagers want to have homosexual sex) (page 44)
Take a look at today’s ‘Emo’ scene among teenagers where Bi and homosexuality are a requirement for being one of the ‘cool kids. The music, language, philosophy, imagery and philosophy of ‘sensitivity and inclusion’ are part and parcel of the ‘Emo lifestyle. The peer pressure exerted by kids in the Emo scene leave many modern teens with two options. Participate in the ‘culture’ or be excluded and be left practically friendless. Because of the secular ‘de-popularization’ and destruction of religious institutions in America (see the homosexual lobby influence on media and religion above) , many kids are raised with a limited sense of right and wrong at best and a situational one most of the time. Combined with the homosexual lobby’s 24/7 media and school/educational barrage saying that It’s OK to be Gay and the latest It gets better advertizing featuring sports, music and TV/movie stars, modern kids are programmed to think nothing of homosexual sex and become willing participants. One result: The gay porn industry has created an entire genre devoted to gay Emo sex and has profited spectacularly.
28)Vast majority of homosexuals do not engage in compulsive high-risk sex (page 49)
Homosexual sex is by it’s very definition, High Risk. This is yet another flat out lie spread by the homosexual lobby that kills people. The majority of homosexuals killed by the AIDS virus contracted it through high risk homosexual sex. 1+1=2. A critical thinker would ask why the homosexual lobby would advocate a deadly lie to the very people for which it advocates? One need only play a game of chess to understand how useful sacrificing a pawn to achieve ultimate victory can be. Leftists, regardless of their stripe, are not big advocates of the sanctity of life (see their belief in abortion and euthanasia) and have the history of famous leftists like Stali, Mao and Hitler have demonstrated, they will ‘sacrifice’ millions of their own people, and others to achieve their goals. See also the prior discussion on an AIDS infected blood supply.
30)All homosexually suicides are based entirely on societal rejection (page xv)
A statement which relieves the homosexual lobby from culpability. Except it isn’t even remotely true. It seems they forgot to mention all the AIDS related suicides, the suicides over clinical depression, suicides over financial concerns and the suicides over failed homosexual relationships. In this regard, homosexuals are no different than hetrosexuals.
32)Homosexual civil rights are explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it assress sexuality in any way, shape or form. Read it yourself. The homosexual lobby counts on the fact that most people never have and just accept the lie at face value.
33)Health concerns for AIDS prevention are unwarranted (page 91)
How is it unwarranted to be concerned that getting a 100% fatal disease through any vector is unwarranted? Pure absurdity. Yet the homosexual lobby makes many such absurd claims to cloud the issue of what it is they represent and what their goals really are.
35)Adoption agencies have been placing kids with gay people for a long time, as long as you do not bring up the fact that your gay;
36)Groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in the media campaign (page 184);
So leftists ignored the law to satisfy the desires of homosexuals and as a result, a deserving heterosexual family was denied a child and a child’s mental and physical health and sexual welfare were placed in jeopardy. Now, leftists working through activist courts have codified child endangerment.
A critical thinker would ask why it is that a group of people sexually attracted you young/adolescent boys (see ‘Chickenhawk - And even younger when considering the North American Man Boy Love Association) would want to adopt them? A critical thinker would also note that the more legislative barriers destroyed, the faster the homosexual lobby achieves its agenda the total mainstreaming of homosexuality and all that implies.
39) Kids in gay households ultimately receive better-than-average parenting (page 97)
According to whom? The answer comes in Ivory tower ‘studies’ conducted by leftists who openly support the homosexual agenda. As we have determined and they openly admit that they advocate spreading false information and propaganda, a non-biased study and investigation into any such claims is required. But information, regardless of the source is immediately denounced if contrary to the homosexual agenda as they have also openly told us.
What determination does a logical reading of this situation lead to?
40) Gay activists have tried to manipulate the American judicial system. Sometimes the tactic works: many executive orders (which side step the democratic process) and ordinances passed by city councils now protect certain rights (page 171);
Witness Prop 8 in California presided over by a homosexual judge (who hid his sexuality during the trial) and activist courts that have repeatedly sided with the homosexual lobby, exceeding their legitimate authority by replacing the constitutional role of the legislative branch of government and inventing laws where none existed .
62) It will be a sheer delight to besmirch our tormentors, we cannot waste our resources on revenge alone (page 189);
63)Too many Americans share this mistrust of gay citizens (page 55);
I cannot for the life of me understand why.
“Im happy for you.”
Why thank you.
And now that we have determined that you want the state to control what products my children can and cannot consume are there any other ways you wish to expand the power of the federal government to dictate how I raise my kids?
Accursed format be gone!
Er...sorry about that in the lower half.
Are you practice your typing? ... Whom did you expect to read that lengthy drek?
Why you of course. And that you didn’t saddens me to my very core. How will I ever go on?
Just out of curiosity, I pasted that one post into my Word processor and check the page length. In Times New Roman, even with the crappy formatting int he lower section, that post is 15 pages long. Wouldn’t you have been more likely get readers of the material if you had linked to it rather than posting it on a discussion thread? ... Sometimes people do the darndest things ...
Theoretically, two men could get married and never have sex. How would anyone know?
“Apparently you weren’t following the discussion I was having with Mike3689. Video games and movies are quite different, just as video games - and movies as well - are quite different from books.”
Not at all. Show me the functional difference of playing army with a plastic toy gun and on A PS3 in Call of Duty.
In the mind of the child playing, body parts fly and blood flows regardless.
Ever woke up from a nightmare with sweat rolling off you? Your eyes saw nothing (like you would in reading/watching a movie/Book) but your imagination made it so real you were in total fear.
How about Lord of the Rings? It started as books, and they were turned into three of the best movies of all time. The movies were then turned into video games, where the player is able to take part in the epic battles from the books and movies. Is it wrong to want to play these video games? I read the books, I saw the movies, and I’ve played the games. All three are quite violent.
I could have gone back and forth for a few dozen or more posts trying to make the same argument with ILSP and between us came up with 15 printed pages easily. Anyone wanting to read it can, or just skip it entirely.
Theoretically, two men could get married and never have sex. How would anyone know?
I play CoD: Modern Warfare 2 with my little nephew all the time. He loves the Afghanistan maps because he likes to pretend he’s helping out his dad. He also likes “helping” his dad when he plays with toy guns in a way like Norm mentioned. He’s seen footage of where his dad fought, in both Afghanistan and Iraq. How are these things any different?
I don’t.. If we allow the Government to regulate the internet what makes you think they won’t ban sites like this???
My point was that when a child ‘imagines’ he is playing soldier at war, he imagines the bombs, the smoke, the fire, the blood...all of it. Since the imagination is every bit, even more powerful than an actual visual representation of violence, a boy playing army is getting every bit of the mental ‘effect’ and more than a video game/movie or book will give him.
So should we stop boys from playing army/cowboys and indians/cops and robbers too?
That’s what I was getting at. Since generations of boys have played at war games without traumatizing themselves into fits of murder, I fail to see/nor is there a shred of proof to be had that video games, a less mentally impressional form of input than one’s own imagination, will be a problem.
Thank you LeeLou, that’s exactly the kind of thing I’m getting at.
Take it away and all it does is further pussify boys/men.
Dodgeball is to violent to these people and lib moms across America campaign against toy guns for the same reason.
I love a story I read that such a mom brought her kids to play at the home of her brother who wasn’t toy gun averse. Lib mom took the guns away and so the kids then ran around ‘shooting’ with their fingers.
The nanny staters just do not get it and expect the rest of us to go along because THEY want things their way.
Lawyers have repeatedly blamed video games on violent behavior in various court cases. It fails in court every time because there is no scientific evidence to back up the assertion.
“Now, if the government wanted to take taxpayer money and design obscene or violent video games, I would be all for ending that nonsense, but that’s not what we’re dealing with here.”
Yup. As would I.
Strawman? A fact proven time and again for thousands of years is a strawman? No scientific proof is a strawman? Your agenda appears to be unmasked. Or like libs you are going on emotion rather than available evidence.
“No, the harm done by video games doesn’t excuse violent behavior”
Until you show proof of harm, this conversation is pointless.
You made the assertion now back it up.
I like having my nephew over for what I call “Bro Night.” We eat pizza and ice cream and play all kinds of video games, yet he still turning out alright. It really helps him deal with the long periods away from his dad. I don’t need the government telling my nephew what to eat or what to watch or what to play. And, it’s certainly not what his dad is putting his life in danger for.
We are not dealing with violent video games per se. We are dealing with their their sale to minors can be banned. Different argument. There are many things that can’t be sold to minors.
Might as well give it up Sarah. For some reason most of the posters seem to think that requiring stores to honor a parent's wishes is a symptom of a nanny state. Some think that they are "super parents," and can control everything their children do at all times, both inside and out of the house.
I think it's because this has to do with video games, and a lot of the posters like to play. I wonder if they'll be whistling the same tunes when the ACLU sues the government into rescinding all "R" movie ratings and access to porn in the name of free speech. Requiring parental permission is not the same as banning a product. Personally, I don't think violent video games are harmful. I do however see this as yet another step in taking away a parent's right to control what their kids see and do.
My kids are in their 20s now so it doesn’t apply to me. Even when they were younger, my son played football and basketball video games. He still does. Never wanted the violent ones and I wouldn’t have allowed them anyway. But I am not so naive to believe he could not have been exposed to them outside of home. I see this law as protecting children, not as an end run around parents’ authority. One thing I did learn as a parent was that my children could not always be trusted to do the right thing.