=================
----quote begins of posting 1:
Lame boring inane PC bullshit (such a film / franchise feeling the need to do such a thing).
May be child abuse.
By comparison, IF Mr. Rogers was gay, he should not have revealed that to his toddler audience, period.
My "fellows" on the left would claim that I don't even have a right to such an opinion.
But ultra PC directors feel the need to put gay dicks right in our faces.
Keep your Jesus off my penis cuts both ways.
Which otherwise sinking political/cultural boat can I jump to? Seems like both the leftie and rightie boats have some issues.
Maybe my own boat will float better. We'll see.
----quote begins of posting 2:
In response to someone who claimed we need to view everything as equal, I then wrote:
Hetero kissing leads to life.
Non-hetero leads to the opposite, in many ways, and by default.
Q. Do we need to make gay marriage & sex equal?
A. No. It will never be equal. Not so long as two men and/or two women cannot >naturally< make babies.
The whole concept of pushing for forced equality is incredibly abusive & wrong headed, and indicative of a greater problem with the liberal left.
Why is it harmful to expose children to the "strong possibility" of being gay? Because gayness is far less set in stone than the left will admit. Perhaps a bit more biological in *some* cases than the right will admit. But still, having children sucked into what is essentially a death cult (speaking frankly) is abusive.
Cartoons? Books for 2-9 year olds? Are you (ie: that is, the advocates that gayness be presented as "equal" to children) serious?
What if the presentation of gayness-as-equal to a kid robs them of a life in a normal marriage with kids? What if?
That ain't so bad - so says the liberal. The planet already has too many people already. Hey, the more people that become gay the better.
Now, you have to realize that my observations & views come after a LOT of observations of my own, at MANY liberal leftist social meetings, plus gay bars, plus gay parties, from perhaps 1995 through 2012.
Is exposure to the Stonewall agenda inherently abusive & damaging to children? I maintain it is. And I ain't a Mormon, nor a Catholic.
Rather, I'm a naturalist & science advocate who happens to maintain that 14.5 billion years of evolution, and the development of sexual reproduction with males & females being present counts for something - as it should.
Children sucked into the gay lifestyle may well be robbed of a life which could be more happy & productive.
Liberal heresy.
Oh, I'm just latching on to the beliefs I had in the past. I don't think so. It's not that simple.
Can I channel at least a bit of my wife's views on this issue, and work to intellectually stand up for how humans think who had ZERO exposure to Mormonism, Catholicism, and so on?
Anyway, yes there's gay people & there will continue to be.
I just advocate for the position that gay "marriage," or whatever you want to call it will NEVER be as valuable to humanity as normal straight marriage. That's it.
And comparisons to the banning of interracial marriage is not only a complete and utter non-sequitur, it's abusive and inane to even make such a comparison.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/
"...Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage. The reason for this, writes libertarian economist Jennifer Roback Morse, is that 'marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.' Hence, this explains its standing as an uncontroversial common law liberty. 'By contrast,' Morse goes on to write, 'same-sex 'marriage' is completely a creation of the state. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple...'"Quite so.
---
More apt responses from
http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-viking-in-how-to-train-your-dragon-2-revealed-i-love-the-idea-says-director-video-119910/
"Seriously? Putting this in a children's movie?" eb wrote on the EOnline blog. "I have absolutely no problem with any homosexual people but the way [it's] pushed down everyone's throats now [it's] getting out of hand."---
"My very young kids love this franchise. However, this is not a conversation my wife and I are prepared to have yet. It's immensely frustrating that Hollywood feels complete autonomy to force these issues on our kids," another user agreed.
Additional related thoughts:
Family Values Atheism: Questioning liberal dogma -- the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here -- questioning gay marriage -- secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html
----quote ends of posting 2:
After receiving several replies in an online forum, I drafted the following pointed reply:
----quote begins of posting 3:
One million posts. Can't you put your thoughts into a single post. Every point doesn't need to be in a separate post.
I only have two hands.
Were you drunk when you replied? Jonathan Brown?
LGBT rights today. Zoophile & NAMBLA tomorrow.
This JPAC guy does have a point...
---
I waded through the load of shit you both put out. My goodness - a lot.
I can see why the religious look at the left and say: fuck, I ain't leaving my religion just to join up with those amoral fucks.
Quite so.
They have a good point.
Out of all the liberal smoke blowin', I did see one or two things worth responding to.
"You understand that homosexuality is found in pretty much all species on earth right?"
WGAF.
In "human nature" we also have: Zoophilia. Man-boy "love" (pedophilia). Sociopathy. Psychopathy. Schizophrenia. And so on.
Also, there happens to be biological roots behind whether a person likes Obamacare, or not. Whether they worship Ayn Rand, or not. And so on.
Just because something is natural, doesn't "make it right or useful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Human males & females have babies. Marriage is about family & babies.
Hey, put your dick in ALL the assholes in the world, and you will NEVER produce a baby from that act.
Don't like that? Too bad.
If you're a lesbian, you may well dream of parthenogenesis.
Do you cheer when you hear about the supposed decline of the Y chromosome?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17127617
http://wi.mit.edu/news/archive/2012/theory-rotting-y-chromosome-dealt-fatal-blow
---
God doesn't hate fags. But evolution by natural selection may have a few concerns about such activities, like it or not.
Liberals do have their heads right up their asses when it comes to equating gay marriage with normal regular long standing 14.5 billion year history marriage.
Right up their fucking asses. So, that's it.
Whoever the hell black atheists are?
Rich gay crackers w/no children commitments (of course!) are invading their neighborhoods & making the housing prices go up. No wonder they're more than a little upset.
Also, and here's the kicker for any liberal dumbshit:
Fully natural human morality exists in religion. In the Bible.
Now, as per my own ref. to the naturalistic fallacy, we do have to be careful. But on the other hand, the highly useful shaming (in some cases) that exists in human CULTURES, the shaming that helps us thrive and survive, some of that shaming IS valuable.
Not everything is equal. The LDC maintains it is.
Good job. In 100 years you may not have left any speck on the Great Mandala. But, in the de facto apparent dreams of all liberals, at least NAMBLA group members and Zoophiles will be able to marry, along with the LGBT crowd.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/787617/posts
NOT so distant a connection as you might think, leftie liberal with your head in the sand.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/response-to-site-claims-attack-by-lds.html
And again, I fucking like Obamacare. Yes, Ayn Rand was a dumbshit.
BUT, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist & so on.
So, the Blacks in America who're concerned about this negative abusive part of cracker culture do have a point.
----quote begins of posting 4:
Further:
In response to "14.5 billion years of marriage? Don't think it was your idea of marriage for that long," I replied:
The number has gone up & down a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
13.8 - 4.54 = 9.26 billion just to get our Earth going, with the more rare elements coming from exploded stars.
Another 2 to 3 billion to get sexual reproduction.
60 MYBP (million years before present) for primates
20 MYBP for great apes
2.5 MYBP for the homo genus
200,000 years before present for the first anatomically modern humans
And 10 to 40 years ago for the assumption that gay "marriage" is equal to straight normal regular marriage.
We may as well consider this *assumption* to be a side-effect of how human neural networks can go "right off the rails," as with any religion.
Maybe some day, two vaginas, or two dicks, will produce children.
Hey it happens in other animals, moving back, and speaking generally about asexual reproduction.
Crafty lesbians are finding a way to get sperm into their hoohaws, by hook or by crook. I suppose one can admit that such an action is also "natural," since all actions by humans are by default natural.
Whatever.
I just think there's value in advocacy for honoring long standing history, and with taking a step back.
Completely discounting the shaming propensities that exist in ALL human cultures is a wrong headed & destructive response.
Can liberals accept that children may, ideally, need a mommy & a daddy?
Marry if you want (as a gay). But, don't so easily discount what evolution by natural selection may have instilled into the brain of a child some naive judge may have allowed into your home.
