"For The Children"

When it comes to calling for political changes or moral improvement, "for the children" is one of the most irrelevant motivations a person could have.  Things like profanity or revealing clothing are sometimes condemned because of the supposed negative impacts they may have on kids, when there is nothing to object to anyway if the thing itself is not morally problematic.  What the ideas behind this phrase are almost never truly about is helping kids psychologically develop safely, and even if that was the goal, it is always asinine to seek this at the expense of alignment with reason.  There is not some separate standard of morality for children that adults have to pressure them to follow; if moral obligations exist, either something is morally permissible or it is not because of its own nature rather than factors like age.

If someone must believe or argue for a fallacy in order to carry out their wishes to "help children," they have only used self-deception (or deception of others), stupidity, and ignorance as tools to further whatever assumptions they have.  Since something that is morally fine for adults is morally fine for children, this is just an irrelevant factor meant to manipulate other adults into yielding to some often untrue, unverifiable, or misguided ideology by appealing to emotional concern for children.  Moreover, when they have the desire to be rational, children can understand certain things to the point of avoiding conceptual errors made by many adults.  Some parents (including some Christians) still are frightened into micromanaging their children's lives, misleading them, or just ignoring entire important subjects with them to make themselves feel better.

Sexuality?  Children do not need adults to shield them from talk of sexuality or the sight of sexual expression by default because sexuality is not harmful or sinful on its own.  Profanity?  If there is nothing immoral about profanity, it cannot matter if children use it; they would not be sinning either.  Violence in media?  If a child cannot personally handle violent content in entertainment--or sexual content or anything else--it is not irrational or legalistic for parents to help shield them from something that has a hurtful impact on them, but it is not logically impossible for even a young child to be intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually mature.  Making assumptions about their philosophical competence and self-awareness is asinine as are all other assumptions.

In short, there is not a basis for objecting to entire categories of content in entertainment or everyday habits like profanity just out of concern for children.  It is not intelligent or morally sophisticated to use children as an excuse for adults to enforce arbitrary, illogical beliefs based on preference.  It is, unfortunately, common for this to happen anyway.  Adults do not have an automatic intellectual advantage over children.  They can be even more fallacious than some children despite having less of an excuse because of their longer lives.  When an adult finds himself or herself wanting to morally oppose something just for the sake of children who might encounter it, they need to think carefully about their motivations.  They likely are just using children as an excuse for erroneous philosophy.