Saudi Arabia in talks with SE for 8 months to get LGBT content censored

[DonFerrari]

crissindahouse said:

One of the reasons Saudi Arabia and Qatar helped Musk to buy Twitter. They love the idea to have someone who likes to shoot against that community to be the owner of this huge platform. They also love the idea that millions who might have been banned on Twitter in the past won't anymore for hate posts against this community. 

It's not only about what they don't want to see in their own country like some try to say. 

I'm sure Saudi Arabia loves how Musk is pushing twitter to have less censorship.

Hiku said:

Maybe we should move this to the Politics section since it has gone off the rails.

Lavamelon said:

Saudi Arabia is a country where having families and raising children plays an important role in society. Since homosexual relationships do not produce children, it doesn’t really fit in with Saudi tradition of starting families. If homosexual relationships could produce children, then perhaps it would be more compatible with Saudi Arabian society.

I know that we are steering away from the topic of FF16 being banned in Saudi Arabia, so I will end my discussion here. But if you wanted to know why homosexuality is not seen favourably in Saudi Arabia, there is your answer.

I think someone else went into this, but there are people who physically cannot have children. People with no interest in having children. People who should not be parents. Who are asexual (little or no sexual desire). Who never find a suitable partner. Who don't have time to make a family. Who can't afford it. Etc, etc.

The list of the many scenarios where producing children are not an option goes on and on.

So why the hyper focus and scapegoating on gay people?
I mean, I'm straight. And I absolutely do not want to have children. Neither does my gf. And I know several other couples like that. But no one is persecuting us for that. It's just the gays, who probably want to adopt, that get the blame. So this sounds like a weak excuse.

There are millions of children, many of whom are unwanted, but forced into this world by those same people because they limit or ban abortion, due to "caring about the children" but then leave them to rot in an orphanage, foster care or on the streets for the rest of their lives.

If only there was a group of people who could not produce children of their own, and would have to adopt. (Or find a surrogate.)
But no. Let's make their existance illegal.

DonFerrari said:

Attacks against traditional family is very much a left view action, I don't remember anything from the right wing that is target on destroying families or its meaning. And usually when LGBT are target on the destruction I do agree most of the time it is wrong, because real world LGBTs have and valorize families but media pull is usually "against patriarcade", "against monogamy", etc.

What do you mean by 'attacks' and 'destroying'?
Me and my girlfriend for example don't want to have children. (We have cats though.) Is that considered an 'attack' and 'destroying'? Something we didn't want in the first place?

Perhaps were you live it is different, but in Brazil the pressure to have couples generating children is still something quite common, although I totally agree with you, even if I think being father is one of the best things in the world the decision to be one is very specific to those affected and no one else should interfere unless these people are putting the children in harms way.

Your case I totally don't consider an attack or trying to destroy family, even if you consider marrying your gf for me that is a family (even if small and personally think that in 20 years you, her or both may repent of the choice - and sometimes one of the partners say they don't want to not confront the other or lose the relationship, obviously I'm not implying it is you case as I do like you as a person and want you to have a happy life).

When I talk about attacks and destroying I'm talking more on propaganda, media and etc, individual behaviors can't be taken at that level unless they are very criminal in nature (and I would go further that they also would need to be anti-ethical and the like, because for me something being legal or ilegal don't make it also ethical or unethical as the cases of slavery even when legal is unethical and gay marriage even when illegal is completely ethical - not even sure it should/would have a classification anyway).

The attack I mean is more on a structural level. Some may say it is biggoted or retrograde if one want, but I do see the damage the lack of either father or mother figure may give to children and also that a familiar nucleus is the root for growth from generation to generation of well being for individuals. Fortunately I don't have any bad example for both parents of the same sex, but I certainly do have a lot for single parents (and sure also a lot for bad parents or houses in conflict). So for me it is very clear that when the "santity" (I'm atheist) of the marriage is dimished and parents don't respect one another, doesn't share the struggles and help each other you end up damaging the children.

Still all of that is very far from the topic =p