Alabama drive-in won't show Disney movie because of gay character

So...wonder how many R-rated movies tbey have shown there...

 

it's a private theater, they can choose what to show or sell, what they can't do is deny people service based on race or gender

 

Gross.

Public displays of mental disorders is not "love"

"When a man loves a woman"

Not "When a man loves a man"

 

True. That is why we don't generally show movies celebrating mindless bigotry.

 

Whatever this post even means.

Being against the sick mental disorders known as homosexuality, and gender bending is not bigotry, but nice try.
It's called being a sane, normal functioning member of society.

Not everyone is brainwashed into this sick cult of mental illness.

Man+man=no more men, or women.
Woman+woman=no more women, or men.

Sick
Sick
Sick

 

I love self-refuting posts like yours.

 

Percy Sledge sucks

 

I don't know about liberals, but this libertarian is saying good for them. That is a private business and as such they get to choose what they screen and for what reasons. Now that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with their reasons. And indeed if it seemed more pervasive that a movie screening I would be among the first out there protesting them and trying to use social pressure to get them to change. But I don't believe they should be forced by law to do such.

 

Very good, you can use an extremism fallacy. First off, since this problem would only occur if 100% of the population were to be strictly homosexual, not even bisexual, there is not a concern at all of a population drop, yet alone crash, among humans. Furthermore, our current medical science actually renders sex itself moot for purposes of procreation. Not that we will be giving it up anytime soon, if ever, but the fact remains that we no longer need sex to procreate. The whole world could go 100% asexual and we could still keep the population going.

 

Where's the fun in that?

 

Yeah sure....

And if two (consenting age) very nice looking 18 + girls make love, you might not object so very much as you would if two ugly shaggy old dudes have at it......

 

Book;
Brave New World...
by Aldous Huxley


Reff...

Miranda:
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't!

Prospero:
'Tis new to thee.

The Tempest Act 5, scene 1,
Shakespere

 

Summary please? My book back log is longer than my Netflix/Hulu one.

 

Google Brave New World PDF5
And read it.

Written 1932

The setting; London, the future,
Society is producing people in labs, under scientific controls, artificially controlling intellect at conception in test tubes, and controlling all aspects of peoples lives ala 1984 George Orwell.

 

And we are doing this...now? You're describing a world that exists in the pages of a science fiction novel, set centuries in the future.

And maquiscat is correct. What you're basing your argument is something that could only happen if the VAST majority of humanity was homosexual. I think the rising population proves that some good old fashioned heterosexual shaging is the majority.

 

I argued nothing;

" Maquiscat said: ↑

"Very good, you can use an extremism fallacy. First off, since this problem would only occur if 100% of the population were to be strictly homosexual, not even bisexual, there is not a concern at all of a population drop, yet alone crash, among humans. Furthermore, our current medical science actually renders sex itself moot for purposes of procreation. Not that we will be giving it up anytime soon, if ever, but the fact remains that we no longer need sex to procreate. The whole world could go 100% asexual and we could still keep the population going."

***********************

I simply saw how much that statement
Resembled the book;
"Brave New World"
Aldous Huxley, 1932
Setting London 2542 A.F.
After (Henry) Ford

I have no opinion on such matters

 

Two girls cannot be gay.

To be gay you have to have sex, with the same sex.

Sex is defined as a sex organ penetrating another sex organ.

Girls can not penetrate one another with their sex organs, therefore, they cannot have sex, so they cannot be gay.

Dudes "having at it" is utterly sick, disgusting, unnatural, and a clear case of mental disorders.

 

Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

So ignoring everything but the sexual behavior...you run into a problem with your way of reasoning. Sexual behavior covers a wide range of activities beyond simply placing a penis into a vagina.

By most people's thinking, one person manually manipulating another person's naughty bits is a sexual act. A guy doing it to a girl or vise versa would be a heterosexual act. Two guys fiddling with each other would be a homosexual act. What then would two girls diddling each other's pink bits be?

Then there are certain toys that allow one girl to penetrate another and they both get pleasurable sensations from the act. Sure they're using a surrogate penis in those cases...but it's not heterosexual activity...what then is it?

 

Some people are so committed to their ideology they will deny reality. I view this as deranged. Arguments with the deranged are never that enlightening.

It's like playing leapfrog with unicorns.

 

Actually I liken it to "attacking a mental asylum with a rubber chicken."

It's not going to be effective, you might end up stuck there for a while, and no matter how hard you try...you just can't explain the rubber chicken.

 

I found my way back into this thread from comments made whenever it was started, months ago, now subject to moderator anger after our little activist friends set about furiously reporting anything that offends them.

They seem to think that their ends are achieved by trying to shut their opponents up. They'll obviously fail in that endeavour.

Dudes, and dudettes for that matter, "having at it" are clearly victims (ah, that lovely word) of a sexual disorder according to natural procreation - we exist to procreate and pretty much nothing else. That said, it comes naturally to them. They're as homosexual as we are heterosexual. They shouldn't be persecuted for it. They should be allowed to have at it in private. Nothing else. Gay adoption is a social perversion, and it's one area our Muslim friends have got dead right.

 

I don't think there has ever been laws against people adopting children outside of forbidding sexual predators from doing it.

 

While they may or may not be laws...there are a lot of rules that can prevent someone from adopting.

Wife and I wanted to adopt for a while. Maryland keeps putting up billboards that say "you don't have to be perfect to be perfect parents." Annoys the living hell out of us because while you don't have to be perfect...you do have to make Mary Poppins look like a meth-addicted prostitute to qualify.

We were informed that even well managed diabetes is a disqualifier.

So the adoption agencies can make up whatever rules they want and twist them so they can disqualify someone without running afoul of the anti-discrimination laws.

 

Oh yeah, adoption is a nightmare. My partner was trying to adopt his younger brother it took 3 years to get guardianship. And they have a sanguine relationship.

 

I have found that sometimes, the people that are the harshest critics of homosexuals, are sometimes in denial of their own sexuality.
I remember a fellow recently, he spouted hatred of Gay men, then a year later he was seen by many arm in arm with another man.

I remember a Church athletics coach that constantly vocalized that all Gays will go to hell, yet he was a predator in the true sense as I found out when it was too late.

He did not care about permanently hurting me at such a young tender age.
So much for people saying gay men are lots of hot air.