Gay Agenda's next target: Frozen 2

L L wrote:

I think Hollywood has done a lot of glamorizing the mafia.

They surely glamorize guns.

Should we be concerned about the agenda of violence the same?

I've watched the Godfather and the Birdcage.

I haven't gotten into crime or tried to get close to another dude.

Yes, Hollywood has glamorized the mafia. Yes, Hollywood has glamorized guns. Yes, we should be concerned about the agenda of violence.

Americans have become one of the most violent countries on the planet. Americans can not see anything abnormal about engaging in mafia style practices where they go to other countries kill people and steal their resources.

Whole lotta insecure boys promoting the heterosexual agenda on is thread.

thejeff wrote:

What you are tempted by may not be a choice, but acting on those temptations sure is.

I haven't had alcohol in nearly 8 years, for instance.

That's exactly it.

Some people have temptations for homosexual desires. The problem with Frozen 2 is that it'll tell people those desires are OK to act on. And they clearly are not. Research & statistics show (I've been through this before & shown the data on here) that engaging in homosexuality is a very unhealthy lifestyle.

The message instead should be -- don't act on the temptations. It leads to harm & death. It should be the same message a type 2 diabetic gets from a healthcare professional. Don't eat too many sugars/carbs or it'll harm you. I know you want to have 5 milky way's for breakfast, but don't do it. Unless you want to die.

;) wrote:

Emmanuel Goldstein wrote:

Now let me ask you the $64,000 question: are you totally comfortable with little kids these days being ok with the fact they have friends who have two (or more) mommies, or two (or more) daddies living in the same household? And if you're not comfortable with that then why?

Yes, 100% comfortable. Again, with households one parent or two crappy parents or drug addict parents, two parents in love who happen to be the same sex is trivial to most Americans these days.

As for you other comment, 20 years is not the only difference when you're talking suburbs versus rural towns. I taught in the early '90's in a very rural town with a huge proportion of single parents, kids living with random relatives or friends. Now I live in a suburb that is probably at least 80% two-parent homes.

I love (no pun intended!) how people automatically assume same-sex parents are going to be the loving set of parents when the highest rates of domestic abuse occur within homosexual relationships. And no, there is a large segment of the population that doesn't think same-sex parenting has become trivial, or without consequences to society. However they've been intimidated into being silent on the subject.

As to your second point I agree re: small towns vs. suburbs and throw in another variable from my experience: the numbers of catholic vs. non-catholic families in those respective locales; however you'll agree that a 20% increase in single-parent/non-traditional homes is significant.

Of course there are dysfunctional homosexual homes. To claim that's a reason why kids should not be raised by gay parents is asinine.

I would agree with you that the number of Catholic (or other devoted religious families) probably correlates to more stable households.

;) wrote:

Exactly. With the number of one-parent and dysfunctional two-parent households in this country, the obsession with the "evils" of same-sex parents is baffling. If a kid is happy and content and has two loving parents, I think the fact that they're both male or both female isn't really a top concern.

You make good points but I do think it's weird we never had a discussion as a society as to what we want. We had a huge discussion about gay marriage but people were already adopting/using sperm donors without their being any discussion.

Yes it will. We'll have fewer repressed homosexuals like you!

thejeff wrote:

[quote]Flagpole wrote:

You honestly want to argue that glamorizing a behavior has no effect on people viewing it, especially young children?

Thejeff wrote:

No, I admitted to being an alcoholic.

You just conflated a person's sexuality with a disease? You're (ironically) a sick man.

wtfunny wrote:

Thejeff wrote:

No, I admitted to being an alcoholic.

You just conflated a person's sexuality with a disease? You're (ironically) a sick man.

I forgive you.

wtfunny wrote:

Thejeff wrote:

No, I admitted to being an alcoholic.

You just conflated a person's sexuality with a disease? You're (ironically) a sick man.

Actually, no, I am not letting this go.

One of these you dismiss as "just the way someone is".

The other, you refer to as "a disease".

Neither is caused by a germ.

I want to know why you chose the terminology you did.

YOU have been infected with a disease: liberalism.

rojo wrote:

I was like, "Yes they do." I started to ask him if he thought it was better to have a mom and a dad and explain I thought it was as they complent each other but ended up not saying anything as I didn't want him going up the kid in his school and saying, "My dad's friend says it's better to have a mom and a dad than two moms."

WHAT. This is hilarious and so sad at the same time. No crap you should have said that... That would have been about as maliciously embarrassing and incompetent as any adult-child interaction could have ended. Because they "complement" each other better. Cmon Rojo, you can be better than this.

Thejeff wrote:

wtfunny wrote:

You just conflated a person's sexuality with a disease? You're (ironically) a sick man.

....Neither is caused by a germ....

YOU have been infected with a disease: liberalism.

Is cancer a disease? How about diabetes? Hypertension? COPD? Any of those caused by a "germ"? You've admitted before on these boards that science / medicine is not your strong suit...not that you had to, it's pretty obvious.

The difference between substance abuse and homosexuality, is vast. They are not conceptually even on the same spectrum.

One is a disease (substance abuse) that has a very negative impact on the health of the individual and (often) on their family & friends via accidents, violence, absenteeism, etc. I am happy that you have over come your addiction. Good for you.

But arguing that homosexuality is somehow a disease reveals your absolute lack of understanding of this issue.

Homosexuality is a variant of normal behavior that--so long as all intimate acts are done between consenting adults--harms no one. It is not a disease and doesn't harm an individual any more than does a heterosexual romantic relationship (...in case you haven't been paying attention straight people abuse one another, get STDs, cheat on each other, etc. all the time). The "scientific" literature often quoted here or in other settings suggesting gay realationships are more "unhealthy" (...however you choose to define that) are highly controversial and generally use flawed / biased methodology. It's easy to cherry pick data to support an anti-gay stance.

Finally, Ignorant folks often conflate pedophilia or even beastiality with homosexuality to try and make points--but no one is arguing that it is ok to engage in relations or sexual acts with individuals that can not legally consent to such things.

Do you know any gay folks thejeff? Any gay parents? I do. Some of them are great people / parents, others not so much. If you have a problem with gay folks--especially if you don't know any--than I think, as many posters have already suggested--you are likely either a repressed homosexual (did that contribute to your self medication with alcohol? Maybe think about that...) or simply an ignorant bigot. No one is going to "turn a kid gay" that wasn't going to be gay already. I say this as a parent who has little kids (...one of whom LOVES frozen). I really don't care if Elsa is gay in the sequel.

"Absolutely, yes! I am willing to bet that 90% of posters on this board felt that first romantic tingle as a result of watching something on tv. Maybe not while watching tv, but because of it... U never would have thought about Sally from the playground that way, except that you saw Thomas J and Veda Sultanfus kiss."

You have got to be kidding. People got "tingly" long before there was television or movies dude.

thejeff is such a kidder wrote:

"Absolutely, yes! I am willing to bet that 90% of posters on this board felt that first romantic tingle as a result of watching something on tv. Maybe not while watching tv, but because of it... U never would have thought about Sally from the playground that way, except that you saw Thomas J and Veda Sultanfus kiss."

You have got to be kidding. People got "tingly" long before there was television or movies dude.

90% of the posters on these boards weren't around before TV, dude.

thejeff is such a kidder wrote:

"Absolutely, yes! I am willing to bet that 90% of posters on this board felt that first romantic tingle as a result of watching something on tv. Maybe not while watching tv, but because of it... U never would have thought about Sally from the playground that way, except that you saw Thomas J and Veda Sultanfus kiss."

You have got to be kidding. People got "tingly" long before there was television or movies dude.

Incorrect! It's a scientific and historical fact that Gay Disney Characters are the source of all gayness throughout ancient history. Even Plato commented on this...

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of gay Disney characters."

-Plato (c. 370 BC)

See PROOF that even the great thinkers of western civilization have weighed in on this issue.

I just want to clarify something:

Do you think it is bad to be gay?

1. Never said science and medicine weren't strong suits. Others may have said that about me, but that was a trollish assumption on their part, because they know I believe in the Bible. I understand both just fine :-)

2. The germ comment was an oversimplification to make a point. Both behaviors are abnormal psycological conditions. Look at the rates of other mental illness that coincide with homosexuality. Now, some well meaning liberal may argue that depression coinciding with homosexuality is an effect of society's backlash against them. The fact is, we have no way to know which is the cause and which is the effect, but given the correlation, I believe the liberals are kidding themselves.

3. Of course no one is going to turn a kid gay...just like no one is going to turn a kid into a drug abuser, or an alcoholic, or anything else. Those lifestyles are all choices...but we can help our youth by exposing them to the dangers of those types of lifestyles at appropriate developmental stages, and I maintain that a G rated movie is not the proper place for it.

Thejeff wrote:

thejeff is such a kidder wrote:

"Absolutely, yes! I am willing to bet that 90% of posters on this board felt that first romantic tingle as a result of watching something on tv. Maybe not while watching tv, but because of it... U never would have thought about Sally from the playground that way, except that you saw Thomas J and Veda Sultanfus kiss."

You have got to be kidding. People got "tingly" long before there was television or movies dude.

90% of the posters on these boards weren't around before TV, dude.

Once again you have made a statement without thinking it through, and when called on it, make an irrelevant response. You clearly meant it as a generalization.

Thejeff wrote:

3. Of course no one is going to turn a kid gay...just like no one is going to turn a kid into a drug abuser, or an alcoholic, or anything else. Those lifestyles are all choices...but we can help our youth by exposing them to the dangers of those types of lifestyles at appropriate developmental stages, and I maintain that a G rated movie is not the proper place for it.

So are you saying that if you had just watched a couple movies with gay characters when you were a kid, you too might be gay? Oh, the fragility of your sexuality.