LGBTQ and the ”Sex & Nudity” section of the “Parents Guide”

The Parents Guide section is reserved for stuff that can harm and/or scare children. Seeing LGBTQ stuff does not fall into this category.
That being said, if you want to make informed choices, IMDb has keywords, detailing what a certain title is about.

I'd like to see a section that covers bad music because it makes my ears bleed. Can we add that as well?
Being LGBTQ-phobic is not a reason to add a section.

Where's the tolerance with "do not want to see them on TV". Please tell me how it's tolerant with not wanting to see them on tv. And I would also think it exhibits a phobia.  Not wanting to see snakes in a show can be due to a phobia. Not wanting to see them if it isn't a phobia, it's certainly intolerant.  Or how else would you describe it? Thank God the country isn't controlled by intolerant people, hence the USSCOTUS ruling.

Obergefell v. Hodges Docket no. 14-556
can't wait.

Tossing in a comparison with Horror/Slasher films is just as irrelevant since those tags are listed elsewhere.  Unless you’re suggesting that IMDb needs to move those warnings into the Parents Guide section. Is there a level of Horror/Slasher films that you’d find acceptable to show to a child?

The original complaint was about listing a theme of ‘openly homosexual’ in the Sex & Nudity section. Homosexual means that the person is attracted to someone of the same gender.

Homosexual does not equal sex. That would mean that heterosexual would also equal sex. Most people would disagree with that statement.

Homophobia is an irrational fear or dislike of homosexuals and homosexuality.

Clearly, you are missing the point entirely.

A theme of ‘open homosexual’ does not belong in the Sex & Nudity section.

All of your comments have ignored the original topic.

First, there are two discussions and they are overlapping, so relevance must be placed into context of both threads.
Second, this whole issue has to do with LGBTQ intolerance which comes from the other post in the statement that "we Christians...do not want to see them on TV".
So would it be ok to have a category that identifies inter-racial relationships?
There is a large # of people that do not believe in inter-racial relationships, so why shouldn't imdb create a category for that? It has nothing to do with sex, sexuality, or nudity. I'm in an inter-racial marriage that had been barred by law.

The only label we should assign to anyone is that they're a person.   ....................................PERIOD..............................................................

There are ways for those that want to avoid movies or tv that already exist. It's hiding of the agenda that I have the problem with.

Finally Ed, just because you say something doesn't make it so. I'm not sure if understand Alito's dissent, but it had to do with judicial activism versus doing something in the way the Founders intended which is through the legislative branch with the executive branch. The problem for some was that the legislative branch did make a law, but it wasn't how some activists wanted it to be so they used the court. Alito felt that the court expanded protections to a group not intended by the law that was used. There are many problems with the 14th amendment and it is used far too broadly. In case you're not aware, it was almost immediately challenged so as to not give the expanded rights to Native Americans. It took another 100 years before Native Americans would gain their full citizenship.

In any case, in light of imdb giving in on the birth name issue, which I disagree with, they'll never add something like this. Incidentally, I believe birth names should be part of the database if it's relevant. Not all actors have a birth name. Someone's actual birth is a fact, and it would just take too much to get into that whole issue. I'll give one example though which is Muhammad Ali who vehemently hated his birth name for reasons others can research, but he would easily consider it just as much deadnaming and yet his birth name is on his page.

In any case, I welcome a thoughtful rebuttal, and I'd encourage you to come up with a defense of agreeing with the statement of "do not want to see them on TV" because that statement is extremely intolerant and you agreed with it and have defended it, so now you need to support it.

OK.. not all Christians think alike. Given. Most that I know do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours is no more valid than mine. Yes, this will only devolve into one "intolerant" side making no valid arguments and resort to name calling. How mature. No one has made a valid argument as to how this harms the LGBTQ community. It does not. Adding a section to Parents' Guide only helps everyone, and names no names. Because I do not want my children watching two guys groping or having sex, or watching two women really going at it, does not make me a bad person. I don't care what others do or what activities they watch. I just don't want to watch it, and truly believe that if I know up front that there is going to be this activity, then I will not watch it. Everyone else can do what that want. Why cannot I? And, why is asking for this being added to Parent's Guide a "bad thing?" You have no logical argument, and yet you can attack, attack, attack. This is a good example of what's wrong with America today. You want me to be tolerant, but you do not even bother being tolerant or logical. Go figure. Hypocrisy at its height.

For the one who said LGBT stuff can't harm or scare children. Considering that homosexuality and bisexuality are sexualities, they could harm children on a mental level. Or, at the very least confuse them, just like heterosexuality. If you want equality, then all forms of sexuality must be treated in the same manner. That, and because not everyone has the same mindset or opinions, they still need to list it, to avoid shock and disgust.

I think you need to define ”LGBT stuff”. Especially compared to ”hetero stuff”. IMDb usually doesn’t just list ”stuff”. If you mean ”sex scenes”, then yes, they’re not aimed for children in movies or TV - whether they’re LGBT stuff or hetero stuff. Sex stuff is not for kids.

People holding hands, people kissing in a romantic way (no french kisses!), candle light dinners... those are another matter. They’re ”romantic stuff”. But not ”sex stuff”.

I mean things that can only be included in a sexual context. People could kiss/hold hands/have dinner when they're just friends, so of course that's fine. If a film presents a romantic gesture in some sensual way, then that should be treated as if it was sexual. If that makes sense.