SRCag18 said:

---

Workplaces promote diversity as a strength, and for that to happen, minorities need to be hired.

"Quotas" aren't necessary for straight people, white people, etc., since they're the majority.

Stop with the "woe is me, I'm a straight white male and every minority wants more than what I have" attitude.

Everybody worried about being overtaken by a minority of race, sexuality, or otherwise is very telling. It means you know how poorly minorities are treated and you don't want the same for yourself.

---

This may be the dumbest thing I've read today. Not surprising it comes from you.

People like you call others racists for simply wanting the best and most qualified candidates hired regardless of race or orientation. Diversity for the sake of diversity is not a strength.

Good lord you're dense.

2 more wrong ideas:

1) truth is determined by how many people believe it

2) deviation from traditional sexuality is something new or "progressive". Hell, these same ideas had center stage during the moral decay of the freaking Roman Empire 2000 year ago.

TxTarpon said:

---

Yep.
Banned in the UAE because of it.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3295927

---

Funny, no outrage from the American left on this.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

2 more wrong ideas:

1) truth is determined by how many people believe it

2) deviation from traditional sexuality is something new or "progressive". Hell, these same ideas had center stage during the moral decay of the freaking Roman Empire 2000 year ago.

---

Your point two refutes itself. If the Roman Empire was doing this 2000 years ago, maybe gayness is a form of traditional sexuality.

Also, just to be clear, your pinning the fall of the Roman Empire on immoral sexual practices?

Malibu2 said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

2 more wrong ideas:

1) truth is determined by how many people believe it

2) deviation from traditional sexuality is something new or "progressive". Hell, these same ideas had center stage during the moral decay of the freaking Roman Empire 2000 year ago.

---

Your point two refutes itself. If the Roman Empire was doing this 2000 years ago, maybe gayness is a form of traditional sexuality.

Also, just to be clear, your pinning the fall of the Roman Empire on immoral sexual practices?

---

Sexually abusing children and slaves is now…(checks notes) traditional sexuality? So progressive!

AGC said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

2 more wrong ideas:

1) truth is determined by how many people believe it

2) deviation from traditional sexuality is something new or "progressive". Hell, these same ideas had center stage during the moral decay of the freaking Roman Empire 2000 year ago.

---

Your point two refutes itself. If the Roman Empire was doing this 2000 years ago, maybe gayness is a form of traditional sexuality.

Also, just to be clear, your pinning the fall of the Roman Empire on immoral sexual practices?

---

Sexually abusing children and slaves is now…(checks notes) traditional sexuality? So progressive!

---

Human history isn't a story of consensual monogamous relationships. If someone is making an argument that gayness or any other sexual proclivities are recent creations by the nefarious left, they're making a bad argument. So yes, child abuse, slave rape, etc. etc. are in fact traditional sexuality. The move towards consent is in fact a recent and welcome historical development.

Negative - the presence of deviation does not make it the rule.

Murder has been around since person #3, but it's not any more ok today than it was then.


And it's the Left that uses terms like "progressive", or makes comments like "how can you believe that in 2022?" (See page 1) creating some notion that these ideas are somehow new and evolved. In reality they are the same old ideas with the same old objectives and the same old route causes.

Quote:

---

The move towards consent is in fact a recent and welcome historical development.

---

Sorry, which tradition did we get that one from? The one that promoted consensual monogamous relationships and argued that child abuse, rape, etc were wrong and bad? What other specific teachings does this tradition also bring with it?

Malibu2 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

2 more wrong ideas:

1) truth is determined by how many people believe it

2) deviation from traditional sexuality is something new or "progressive". Hell, these same ideas had center stage during the moral decay of the freaking Roman Empire 2000 year ago.

---

Your point two refutes itself. If the Roman Empire was doing this 2000 years ago, maybe gayness is a form of traditional sexuality.

Also, just to be clear, your pinning the fall of the Roman Empire on immoral sexual practices?

---

Sexually abusing children and slaves is now…(checks notes) traditional sexuality? So progressive!

---

Human history isn't a story of consensual monogamous relationships. If someone is making an argument that gayness or any other sexual proclivities are recent creations by the nefarious left, they're making a bad argument. So yes, child abuse, slave rape, etc. etc. are in fact traditional sexuality. The move towards consent is in fact a recent and welcome historical development.

---

Note to self, ask babysitters if they're on TexAgs with the handle Malibu.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Negative - the presence of deviation does not make it the rule.

Murder has been around since person #3, but it's not any more ok today than it was then.


And it's the Left that uses terms like "progressive", or makes comments like "how can you believe that in 2022?" (See page 1) creating some notion that these ideas are somehow new and evolved. In reality they are the same old ideas with the same old objectives and the same old route causes.

---

Precisely.

The left can't have it both ways: pointing to ancient times as justification that current trends towards normalization of extreme forms of deviance is progress and an inherent good yet cherry picking what forms of deviance it wants to celebrate.

Malibu2 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

2 more wrong ideas:

1) truth is determined by how many people believe it

2) deviation from traditional sexuality is something new or "progressive". Hell, these same ideas had center stage during the moral decay of the freaking Roman Empire 2000 year ago.

---

Your point two refutes itself. If the Roman Empire was doing this 2000 years ago, maybe gayness is a form of traditional sexuality.

Also, just to be clear, your pinning the fall of the Roman Empire on immoral sexual practices?

---

Sexually abusing children and slaves is now…(checks notes) traditional sexuality? So progressive!

---

Human history isn't a story of consensual monogamous relationships. If someone is making an argument that gayness or any other sexual proclivities are recent creations by the nefarious left, they're making a bad argument. So yes, child abuse, slave rape, etc. etc. are in fact traditional sexuality. The move towards consent is in fact a recent and welcome historical development.

---

Liberals must love the smell of their own farts to make arguements like that!

I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm smart enough to know revisionist history when I hear it. My uncle and father grew up in a time where when you got a divorce was unheard of, and if you got one, you would be fired from your job. It wasn't that long ago that society had good expectations.

Frederick Palowaski said:

---

SRCag18 said:

---

Workplaces promote diversity as a strength, and for that to happen, minorities need to be hired.

"Quotas" aren't necessary for straight people, white people, etc., since they're the majority.

Stop with the "woe is me, I'm a straight white male and every minority wants more than what I have" attitude.

Everybody worried about being overtaken by a minority of race, sexuality, or otherwise is very telling. It means you know how poorly minorities are treated and you don't want the same for yourself.

---

This may be the dumbest thing I've read today. Not surprising it comes from you.

People like you call others racists for simply wanting the best and most qualified candidates hired regardless of race or orientation. Diversity for the sake of diversity is not a strength.

Good lord you're dense.

---

Exactly...If diversity in and of itself is valuable, wake me up when Prairie View A&M and TSU start giving scholarships to white people to increase their diversity.

Artorias said:

---

I will be surprised if this movie is not a bust

---

Top Gun has been out for 3 weeks and everyone has seen it. Jurassic World 3 kind of sucked and a lot of people have seen it. Nothing else big comes out until Thor in July. It is summer. It is the only animated movie on the block with a blockbuster character.

It does $200M domestically easy. Likely $500M+ worldwide.

Diversity of thought and experience is a benefit sometimes.

Diversity of skin color is a valid stupid goal only pushed by brainwashed drones.

I am certainly against my kids being gay or any of the alphabet soup. It's wrong to act on those urges if you have them and I want grandchildren.

Just left the movie. To say this thread makes a mountain out of a mole hill would be an absolutely epic understatement.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Artorias said:

---

I will be surprised if this movie is not a bust

---

Top Gun has been out for 3 weeks and everyone has seen it. Jurassic World 3 kind of sucked and a lot of people have seen it. Nothing else big comes out until Thor in July. It is summer. It is the only animated movie on the block with a blockbuster character.

It does $200M domestically easy. Likely $500M+ worldwide.

---

There is a Minion movie coming out too

Malibu2 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

2 more wrong ideas:

1) truth is determined by how many people believe it

2) deviation from traditional sexuality is something new or "progressive". Hell, these same ideas had center stage during the moral decay of the freaking Roman Empire 2000 year ago.

---

Your point two refutes itself. If the Roman Empire was doing this 2000 years ago, maybe gayness is a form of traditional sexuality.

Also, just to be clear, your pinning the fall of the Roman Empire on immoral sexual practices?

---

Sexually abusing children and slaves is now…(checks notes) traditional sexuality? So progressive!

---

Human history isn't a story of consensual monogamous relationships. If someone is making an argument that gayness or any other sexual proclivities are recent creations by the nefarious left, they're making a bad argument. So yes, child abuse, slave rape, etc. etc. are in fact traditional sexuality. The move towards consent is in fact a recent and welcome historical development.

---

So your argument is that progressives are ACTUALLY being CONSERVATIVE by getting back to barbaric practices of ancient times and this is good because its traditional.

What kind of clown world do you live in?

Gonna argue in favor of stoning and ritualistic sacrifice next?

Straight people kiss in kid's movies. Non-straight should be able to do the same. What is the legit interest in trying to censor it?

SRCag18 said:

---

Frio, what we're discussing isn't something that can be debated. It's fact. You're on the wrong side of it.

Don't tell me the sky is purple, then complain when I won't meet you halfway on debating it.

---

You know someone is wrong when they claim they are sooooo right their rightness is beyond questioning.

Only cowards and tyrants try to make that argument fly.

blacksox said:

---

Straight people kiss in kid's movies. Non-straight should be able to do the same. What is the legit interest in trying to censor it?

---

If being homosexual is biological then I have nothing to worry about in regards to taking my kids to see this movie.

But if your sex is not determined by biology as your side claims then there is no way in hell that being homosexual is biologically determined.

So which is it?

Pick one. Are sex and sexuality biologically determined or a social construct? You don't get to claim both.

There's no need to "pick one". The argument being made is that sex and gender aren't one in the same. Personally I think that stuff has gone way off the rails, but you're inventing an argument that most aren't making.

At the end of the day, we've got a bunch of folks with their panties in a twist over something that takes up ~30 seconds of screen time and a kiss you could literally blink and miss. Reading the angst over this you'd think they recreated the sex scenes from Team America.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

blacksox said:

---

Straight people kiss in kid's movies. Non-straight should be able to do the same. What is the legit interest in trying to censor it?

---

If being homosexual is biological then I have nothing to worry about in regards to taking my kids to see this movie.

But your sex is not determined by biology as your side claims then there is no way in hell that being homosexual is biologically determined.

So which is it?

Pick one. Are sex and sexuality biologically determined or a social construct? You don't get to claim both.

---

Username checks out!

Quincey P. Morris said:

---

There's no need to "pick one". The argument being made is that sex and gender aren't one in the same. Personally I think that stuff has gone way off the rails, but you're inventing an argument that most aren't making.

---

No the argument they are making that sex is a social construct and you can be whatever you identify as. You aren't listening to what they are saying.

And then they are arguing that you can decide who you are attracted to because sexual preference like sex is a social construct.

And then they are arguing that because who you are attracted to is biologically and genetically determined you cannot impose social constructs of morality on sexual preference because you are "born this way" and if "you are born this way" you can'g change your preference.

Except when someone wants to. But you still don't get to judge them because "they were born this way" even though they can change what they identify as and who they want to have sex with whenever they want because sex and sexuality is a social construct.

See how this argument goes in circles? Sorry you don't get it ways that is not how reality works.

If sex and secual preference ARE social constructs then we absolutely have a right to impose a social morality on it.

If sex and sexuality are biologically ingrained then it makes it much murkier whether society should impose socially decided morality on it because the proclivities of homosexuals are innate to their nature.

If homosexuals were born gay, then so were pedophiles.

petroleo y agua said:

---

If homosexuals were born gay, then so were pedophiles.

---

Bingo.

And that is the next line they are starting to push.

blacksox said:

---

Straight people kiss in kid's movies. Non-straight should be able to do the same. What is the legit interest in trying to censor it?

---

One is a natural outcome of nature and biblical truth. The other is confusing and deviant behavior.

This isn't rocket science.

I've listened just fine. The concept really isn't that difficult. What they're doing isn't trying to have it both ways. Do I think some folks have gone way overboard with this stuff? Yes, but you're taking what would be an extreme opinion and casting at as one kind of majority thought. That in and of itself is going to kill almost any discussion of value on the subject.

Quincey P. Morris said:

---

I've listened just fine. The concept really isn't that difficult. What they're doing isn't trying to have it both ways. Do I think some folks have gone way overboard with this stuff? Yes, but you're taking what would be an extreme opinion and casting at as one kind of majority thought. That in and of itself is going to kill almost any discussion of value on the subject.

---

If you think I am creating a strawman and this is not what they are arguing then you have not been paying attention.

Ok.

The scene is on YT (and I'm sure essentially every other video hosting platform by now). It's a giant nothing burger. I was led to believe this was an over the top make out scene or something. It's one of the most innocuous kisses in any Disney movie.

Duck Fisney

Quincey P. Morris said:

---

Just left the movie. To say this thread makes a mountain out of a mole hill would be an absolutely epic understatement.

---

You ain't kidding

My goodness

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quincey P. Morris said:

---

Just left the movie. To say this thread makes a mountain out of a mole hill would be an absolutely epic understatement.

---

You ain't kidding

My goodness

---

A big nothing burger that they could have left out (and avoided controversy) since it was ~30 seconds?

Huh, wonder why they didn't take it out but instead left this totally innocuous thing in…it's almost like Disney thinks it's a mountain…

petroleo y agua said:

---

If homosexuals were born gay, then so were pedophiles.

---

Pedophiles are "born" that way in the same way kleptomaniacs are born that way and alcoholics are born that way. They're biological predispositions meeting certain environmental exposures leading to the thoughts or actions. That doesn't make any of those behaviors good or acceptable in society.

Homosexuality is similarly a product of biology plus exposure, but the difference you can be a practicing homosexual and not be harming other people. You cannot be practicing those other behaviors without harming others.

AGC said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quincey P. Morris said:

---

Just left the movie. To say this thread makes a mountain out of a mole hill would be an absolutely epic understatement.

---

You ain't kidding

My goodness

---

A big nothing burger that they could have left out (and avoided controversy) since it was ~30 seconds?

Huh, wonder why they didn't take it out but instead left this totally innocuous thing in…it's almost like Disney thinks it's a mountain…

---

I'm sure they thought it valuable to show different kinds of people. That some folks take such offense to them being shown doing nothing different from a straight character is interesting. The fact that they're the same sex is literally the only thing different about them.