aggiez03 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral.

---

By what standard ?

---

By what standard is it not? If you say Christianity, you're welcome to your beliefs, but that doesn't make it an appropriate policy position.

I would expect "2 daddies" to be a positive representative on a kids show just as much as two dinosaurs with a drinking problem and they get a little "loud" when they get a few beers in them, or 2 hetero dinosaurs but one dino has an egg with another dino they were messing around with on the side, or a dinosaur with multiple eggs with multiple other dinos.

All of those others happen in our society in much higher percentages than the "2 daddies want their own eggs" scenario, but we don't get the "Teddy TRex gets to go to court to determine paternity " episodes, do we?

I think the show is actually Canadian. Disney just distributes it here.

Bob Lee said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral.

---

By what standard ?

---

By what standard is it not? If you say Christianity, you're welcome to your beliefs, but that doesn't make it an appropriate policy position.

---

That gay couples can't beget children is a pretty good indication their conjugal relationships are unnatural.

---

Yet there are examples of gay animals in nature. Is that not, by definition, natural? And when people are born gay, is that not natural?

For years the argument was, if you are gay, you just know it. Nothing is going to change your gayness.

Now it must be taught.

Jeeper79 said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral.

---

By what standard ?

---

By what standard is it not? If you say Christianity, you're welcome to your beliefs, but that doesn't make it an appropriate policy position.

---

I didn't make the claim, nor am I talking about policy. His claim is that a gay relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral.

I asked by what standard is he using to make that claim?

In order to determine if that is true, we would have to know what standard he is using.

texagbeliever said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral.

---

By what standard ?

---

By what standard is it not? If you say Christianity, you're welcome to your beliefs, but that doesn't make it an appropriate policy position.

---

That gay couples can't beget children is a pretty good indication their conjugal relationships are unnatural.

---

Yet there are examples of gay animals in nature. Is that not, by definition, natural? And when people are born gay, is that not natural?

---

Yeah and there are examples of female animals killing and eating their mates after sex is that natural? Also probably plenty examples of rape too. All natural by your savant level logic.

Or perhaps using the animal kingdom is a stupid justification for what is or isn't morally right.

---

You're conflating natural and moral. Pick one.

RGLAG85 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral. And since this is a forum populated by adults, I think we can acknowledge that sex exists in said relationships. I see no reason not to show gay relationships on TV in the % it exists in the population in age appropriate ways. Two male Dinos living together in an implied or commented on relationship is fine. Daddy, why are two men living together? Some, but not many, boys marry boys and girls marry girls. Some people were born like that and marry people they like. Gay question answered for little kids. Simply being gay on a kids TV show isn't anything to clutch pearls about.

Then we exit to crazy town of gender identity, make Dino's hatching eggs, etc. this is in fact contrary to normal behavior, is not scientific, nor age appropriate. Or the other crazy town where every character is the UN of woke intersectionality in ways that don't mirror the real world of peoples lived experience.

---

I've got it, we need to produce kids shows that feature the Male dinosaur spreading the legs of a female dinosaur and licking her between the legs. I mean, it's natural and moral for heterosexual couples to do this, right? I don't need to broadcast to the world what my wife and I do in the bedroom, I don't need to be celebrated for it and I damn sure don't need to educate and indoctrinate kids on this behavior until they're mature enough and show a natural curiousity about this. Here's a thought, why don't we just leave kids alone and all agree that anyone trying to sexualize them should be crucified and cast out. It really is that simple.

---

Good grief. What part of actual sex acts fit within the definition of "age appropriate?" In what universe is a man and man or woman and a woman shown to cohabitate together the equivalent of Dino smut? Get a grip, man.

I don't think there's any age where it's inappropriate or kids are not mature enough to acknowledge that not everyone is the same, and some family relationships look different than yours. A Dino show with gay people as an irrelevant and ignored plot point is not a big deal.

Replace the word natural for moral then. The point stands either way. This application of random animal acts to justify something as natural is beyond ridiculous.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral.

---

By what standard ?

---

By what standard is it not? If you say Christianity, you're welcome to your beliefs, but that doesn't make it an appropriate policy position.

---

That gay couples can't beget children is a pretty good indication their conjugal relationships are unnatural.

---

Yet there are examples of gay animals in nature. Is that not, by definition, natural? And when people are born gay, is that not natural?

---

A thing is unnatural when it frustrates its intended purpose. We know something about the purpose of sex because we know its end. That humans and animals can and do frustrate their intended purpose does not imply that those things are moral acts.

Not to mention that lesser animals are not good models of healthy human behavior because they don't have a rational soul.

If it's natural, why is the percentage in population increasing?

TXAGFAN said:

---

No, god is fine.

You want to post all the awful straight parents too and extrapolate them to the entire population of straight parents? Of course not. Get a grip.

---

Look, if you want respect of your lifestyle, respect our God and our history of bringing up 99.9% of the humans in this worlds history

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

If it's natural, why is the percentage in population increasing?

---

Im not a sociologist but I suspect it's because it's becoming increasingly more acceptable (not seen as immoral and gender roles are less important than they used to be) so fewer people are hiding it. LGBT includes bisexuals which have seen a huge spike among gen Z. The numbers I'm seeing online suggest this is the greatest contributor in recent years.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

The show Dino Ranch features an episode where the children observe two MALE tyrannosauruses who are pretending to incubate rocks that are actually eggs. The two male dinosaurs are obviously "mates" and the allusion to the normalization of a family unit of two same-sex mates could not be more clear. The children work to provide them "eggs of their own".... which is an allusion to "gay" adoption as normative and acceptable.

Disney must be crushed for this kind of indoctrination of children. This is outrageous and this is the kind of thing that true conservatives should be bold in opposing. No more quarter for the promotion of sexual deviancy for children at all.

---

Am I the only one that read the first sentence as ******sauruses?

Really? We sensor slang for transgender now?

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Maybe there is truth to dinosaurs becoming gay…..maybe this contributed to their extinction!

---

The Gay Dinosaur theory.

Also lends credence to Alex Jones.

If the dinosaurs were gay ..... then the frogs are definitely gay.

---

South Park already did it.

Jeeper79 said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral. And since this is a forum populated by adults, I think we can acknowledge that sex exists in said relationships. I see no reason not to show gay relationships on TV in the % it exists in the population in age appropriate ways. Two male Dinos living together in an implied or commented on relationship is fine. Daddy, why are two men living together? Some, but not many, boys marry boys and girls marry girls. Some people were born like that and marry people they like. Gay question answered for little kids. Simply being gay on a kids TV show isn't anything to clutch pearls about.

Then we exit to crazy town of gender identity, make Dino's hatching eggs, etc. this is in fact contrary to normal behavior, is not scientific, nor age appropriate. Or the other crazy town where every character is the UN of woke intersectionality in ways that don't mirror the real world of peoples lived experience.

---

I've got it, we need to produce kids shows that feature the Male dinosaur spreading the legs of a female dinosaur and licking her between the legs. I mean, it's natural and moral for heterosexual couples to do this, right? I don't need to broadcast to the world what my wife and I do in the bedroom, I don't need to be celebrated for it and I damn sure don't need to educate and indoctrinate kids on this behavior until they're mature enough and show a natural curiousity about this. Here's a thought, why don't we just leave kids alone and all agree that anyone trying to sexualize them should be crucified and cast out. It really is that simple.

---

I agree with that. I also don't think two dad dinosaurs with a baby is any more sexual than a mom and dad with a baby. And certainly nobody would be wary of that on a kids show.

---

Actually, it's not, but you know that.

Boycott everything

Eso si, Que es said:

---

For years the argument was, if you are gay, you just know it. Nothing is going to change your gayness.

Now it must be taught.

---

Yep, they're so stupid they can't see they're jettisoning their "it's not a choice or environmental" argument.

Admiral Adama said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral. And since this is a forum populated by adults, I think we can acknowledge that sex exists in said relationships. I see no reason not to show gay relationships on TV in the % it exists in the population in age appropriate ways. Two male Dinos living together in an implied or commented on relationship is fine. Daddy, why are two men living together? Some, but not many, boys marry boys and girls marry girls. Some people were born like that and marry people they like. Gay question answered for little kids. Simply being gay on a kids TV show isn't anything to clutch pearls about.

Then we exit to crazy town of gender identity, make Dino's hatching eggs, etc. this is in fact contrary to normal behavior, is not scientific, nor age appropriate. Or the other crazy town where every character is the UN of woke intersectionality in ways that don't mirror the real world of peoples lived experience.

---

I've got it, we need to produce kids shows that feature the Male dinosaur spreading the legs of a female dinosaur and licking her between the legs. I mean, it's natural and moral for heterosexual couples to do this, right? I don't need to broadcast to the world what my wife and I do in the bedroom, I don't need to be celebrated for it and I damn sure don't need to educate and indoctrinate kids on this behavior until they're mature enough and show a natural curiousity about this. Here's a thought, why don't we just leave kids alone and all agree that anyone trying to sexualize them should be crucified and cast out. It really is that simple.

---

Good grief. What part of actual sex acts fit within the definition of "age appropriate?" In what universe is a man and man or woman and a woman shown to cohabitate together the equivalent of Dino smut? Get a grip, man.

I don't think there's any age where it's inappropriate or kids are not mature enough to acknowledge that not everyone is the same, and some family relationships look different than yours. A Dino show with gay people as an irrelevant and ignored plot point is not a big deal.

---

Teaching difference is its not and does not need to be sexual.

You're conflating teaching natural with unnatural.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral. And since this is a forum populated by adults, I think we can acknowledge that sex exists in said relationships. I see no reason not to show gay relationships on TV in the % it exists in the population in age appropriate ways. Two male Dinos living together in an implied or commented on relationship is fine. Daddy, why are two men living together? Some, but not many, boys marry boys and girls marry girls. Some people were born like that and marry people they like. Gay question answered for little kids. Simply being gay on a kids TV show isn't anything to clutch pearls about.

Then we exit to crazy town of gender identity, make Dino's hatching eggs, etc. this is in fact contrary to normal behavior, is not scientific, nor age appropriate. Or the other crazy town where every character is the UN of woke intersectionality in ways that don't mirror the real world of peoples lived experience. A

---

A man putting his phallus inside another man's rectum is not natural sex, any more than a horse having sex with a women.

Sure, we've rationalized it away as "love is love", but it doesn't make it any more "natural".

---

A dog is not a cat. Thanks for the anatomy lessons and classifying which sexual acts are "natural" and "unnatural". Does this apply to heterosexual couples who engage in "other" acts too? Who cares how people express their love intimately with each other. I don't care what you do in your bedroom or what TXAGFAN does with his.

Love is love isn't a rationalization. It's common sense and it frustrates me that people have religious hang ups why they can't let this one go.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral. And since this is a forum populated by adults, I think we can acknowledge that sex exists in said relationships. I see no reason not to show gay relationships on TV in the % it exists in the population in age appropriate ways. Two male Dinos living together in an implied or commented on relationship is fine. Daddy, why are two men living together? Some, but not many, boys marry boys and girls marry girls. Some people were born like that and marry people they like. Gay question answered for little kids. Simply being gay on a kids TV show isn't anything to clutch pearls about.

Then we exit to crazy town of gender identity, make Dino's hatching eggs, etc. this is in fact contrary to normal behavior, is not scientific, nor age appropriate. Or the other crazy town where every character is the UN of woke intersectionality in ways that don't mirror the real world of peoples lived experience. A

---

A man putting his phallus inside another man's rectum is not natural sex, any more than a horse having sex with a women.

Sure, we've rationalized it away as "love is love", but it doesn't make it any more "natural".

---

A dog is not a cat. Thanks for the anatomy lessons and classifying which sexual acts are "natural" and "unnatural". Does this apply to heterosexual couples who engage in "other" acts too? Who cares how people express their love intimately with each other. I don't care what you do in your bedroom or what TXAGFAN does with his.

Love is love isn't a rationalization. It's common sense and it frustrates me that people have religious hang ups why they can't let this one go.

---

Unnatural sex is unnatural and therefore immoral whether it's between 2 members of the same sex or not. Disordered love isn't love.

Eta: I don't care what 2 people do in their bedroom per se. I care about the banality of things I consider to be moral evils in a society I'm trying to raise my children in.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Capitol Ag said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

The show Dino Ranch features an episode where the children observe two MALE tyrannosauruses who are pretending to incubate rocks that are actually eggs. The two male dinosaurs are obviously "mates" and the allusion to the normalization of a family unit of two same-sex mates could not be more clear. The children work to provide them "eggs of their own".... which is an allusion to "gay" adoption as normative and acceptable.

Disney must be crushed for this kind of indoctrination of children. This is outrageous and this is the kind of thing that true conservatives should be bold in opposing. No more quarter for the promotion of sexual deviancy for children at all.

---

RIDICULOUS. It's was never about just acceptance......it's about normalization. And when you're normalizing kids, it's then call indoctrination.

---

Well, yeah. We made all this progress because we were normalized. Sorta hard to be a bigot when your gay brother is sitting across the table from you at Christmas dinner. We quit dying from HIV/AIDS, more people started coming out, etc. Pretty big shift from 80s/90s. It's a good thing. Hopefully you don't have any young people in your life who find themselves in my situation, doesn't sound like you'd be too supportive which often has grave impacts.

---

My issue isn't about acceptance or "normalization". But don't you agree that Disney should leave this stuff out of shows meant for small children. It's totally forced and produced for the wrong reasons. It's more about some on one side literally trying to "get back at" those on another side of an issue and not about actually doing something for the homosexual community. There is no need, and never was, to even hint at this stuff in children's programming and media designed for them. Add a gay character to an adult show. I'm fine with it. I liked the 3rd episode of HBO's The last of Us. It was well done. But so much of this does gays a huge disservice b/c it is more about some individuals cramming this stuff in the face of the people they consider "homophobic". It's childish and dumb. It's a solution looking for a problem. They need to stop as this type of stuff as it eventually will backfire when they go too far like Anheuser-Busch did with the transvestite on Budlight cans. Know your customer and don't pander to a group that won't pay your bills.

---

Disney and gay promoters want kids to be cool with and consider being gay.

---

Nobody is trying to turn anyone gay. Do you know how crazy that sounds?

---

It is crazy. It's also definitely happening.

---

Where do these people have their super gay meetings to make their super gay agendas to make everyone super gay? You must know something I don't.

---

Post above yours.

---

That "gay agenda" is to get extra representation on screen. Nowhere is it saying they're trying to turn kids gay.

---

Yeah I figured you'd go goalie mode and say something dumb like that. Did you know almost half the men in that choir are registered sex offenders?

Really splitting hairs here huh.

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral. And since this is a forum populated by adults, I think we can acknowledge that sex exists in said relationships. I see no reason not to show gay relationships on TV in the % it exists in the population in age appropriate ways. Two male Dinos living together in an implied or commented on relationship is fine. Daddy, why are two men living together? Some, but not many, boys marry boys and girls marry girls. Some people were born like that and marry people they like. Gay question answered for little kids. Simply being gay on a kids TV show isn't anything to clutch pearls about.

Then we exit to crazy town of gender identity, make Dino's hatching eggs, etc. this is in fact contrary to normal behavior, is not scientific, nor age appropriate. Or the other crazy town where every character is the UN of woke intersectionality in ways that don't mirror the real world of peoples lived experience. A

---

A man putting his phallus inside another man's rectum is not natural sex, any more than a horse having sex with a women.

Sure, we've rationalized it away as "love is love", but it doesn't make it any more "natural".

---

A dog is not a cat. Thanks for the anatomy lessons and classifying which sexual acts are "natural" and "unnatural". Does this apply to heterosexual couples who engage in "other" acts too? Who cares how people express their love intimately with each other. I don't care what you do in your bedroom or what TXAGFAN does with his.

Love is love isn't a rationalization. It's common sense and it frustrates me that people have religious hang ups why they can't let this one go.

---

Unnatural sex is unnatural and therefore immoral whether it's between 2 members of the same sex or not. Disordered love isn't love.

Eta: I don't care what 2 people do in their bedroom per se. I care about the banality of things I consider to be moral evils in a society I'm trying to raise my children in.

---

Pretty interesting leap to "and therefore immoral." Immoral because reasons. Two committed people doing things grown ups in relationships do is not immoral.

And frankly this is all bizarre to me. When I hang out with my friends who are almost all straight, or see them on TV, the thought never occurs to me "those people are engaging in sex." It's obviously implied but it's actually not some thing that I really think about. Yet when it comes to gay people, the first thing that several posters jump to is what happens behind their closed doors. It's just truly bizarre to me.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral. And since this is a forum populated by adults, I think we can acknowledge that sex exists in said relationships. I see no reason not to show gay relationships on TV in the % it exists in the population in age appropriate ways. Two male Dinos living together in an implied or commented on relationship is fine. Daddy, why are two men living together? Some, but not many, boys marry boys and girls marry girls. Some people were born like that and marry people they like. Gay question answered for little kids. Simply being gay on a kids TV show isn't anything to clutch pearls about.

Then we exit to crazy town of gender identity, make Dino's hatching eggs, etc. this is in fact contrary to normal behavior, is not scientific, nor age appropriate. Or the other crazy town where every character is the UN of woke intersectionality in ways that don't mirror the real world of peoples lived experience. A

---

A man putting his phallus inside another man's rectum is not natural sex, any more than a horse having sex with a women.

Sure, we've rationalized it away as "love is love", but it doesn't make it any more "natural".

---

A dog is not a cat. Thanks for the anatomy lessons and classifying which sexual acts are "natural" and "unnatural". Does this apply to heterosexual couples who engage in "other" acts too? Who cares how people express their love intimately with each other. I don't care what you do in your bedroom or what TXAGFAN does with his.

Love is love isn't a rationalization. It's common sense and it frustrates me that people have religious hang ups why they can't let this one go.

---

Unnatural sex is unnatural and therefore immoral whether it's between 2 members of the same sex or not. Disordered love isn't love.

Eta: I don't care what 2 people do in their bedroom per se. I care about the banality of things I consider to be moral evils in a society I'm trying to raise my children in.

---

Pretty interesting leap to "and therefore immoral." Immoral because reasons. Two committed people doing things grown ups in relationships do is not immoral.

And frankly this is all bizarre to me. When I hang out with my friends who are almost all straight, or see them on TV, the thought never occurs to me "those people are engaging in sex." It's obviously implied but it's actually not some thing that I really think about. Yet when it comes to gay people, the first thing that several posters jump to is what happens behind their closed doors. It's just truly bizarre to me.

---

Curious to know where you get your ideas about morality. It seems like you're saying as long as it's not porn, it's not immoral.

The implication is that same sex relationships are the same as a marriages in every respect. Even their ability to have children. It's harmful because there's no truth in it. They're trying to shatter children's conception about what a healthy and virtuous family is. Especially this sort of thing, but also how pervasive single parent households are. Or if there's a straight married couple, the dad is an imbecile or something. It's all meant to subvert people's ideas of what a family should be. A married couple who are good models of masculinity and femininity raising children is almost impossible to find if you don't know where to look. If you were an alien, and all you knew is what's on TV, you'd have no idea there are families that eat together, pray as a family or at all, and go to church on Sundays. It's hard for me to believe that it's not purposeful. And nefarious.

The fact that if every person on this earth was homosexual, then we would cease to exist in one generation should prove that homosexuality is not natural. I don't care if there is gay dolphins or clownfish out there. Humans aren't dolphins. Humans aren't clownfish. To compare the nature of humans to other animals is dumb, just like it would be to compare human nature to plant nature or bacterial nature.

For morality, have you ever seen what happens at pride parades and pride events? Have you seen the actions at drag events for kids? Do you, as a supporter of lgbtq believe it is moral to give cross sex hormones to kids? Do you believe it is natural or moral to have relations with children or animals? What's the difference if you love them? Just because someone is fulfilling their sexual desires does not make it natural or moral.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

If it's natural, why is the percentage in population increasing?

---

Im not a sociologist but I suspect it's because it's becoming increasingly more acceptable (not seen as immoral and gender roles are less important than they used to be) so fewer people are hiding it. LGBT includes bisexuals which have seen a huge spike among gen Z. The numbers I'm seeing online suggest this is the greatest contributor in recent years.

---

Or it's a choice.

Shooter McGavin said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

GOP leaders do NOTHING to stand up to this at the national level.... except in Florida generally.

Acquiescence among those who should be our political and social allies is the problem.

---

cancel your cable. Cancel your Disney plus. Don't go to disneyworld/land.

Many who ***** about Disney on here have posts about Disney trips, movies and tv shows, watch ESPN, etc. If you believe they are that evil do all the things above. Legislating companies to hurt them? That's some democrat *****

The obsession with legislating business "woke think" by Republicans is so insane I can't even begin to fathom how you got there.

---

I avoid all of woke crap businesses as much as possible. I don't/won't give a dime to Disney and hope they sell off ESPN asap. The only time I watch it is for the Ags.

The only legislating people want is that prevents this crap from being forced on us and children. Leave me and the kids alone and we're good.

---

Legislating what people can and can't watch is incompatible with being left alone by government.

If you want you and your family left alone, that requires action on your part to make that a reality, rather than causing society at large to conform to your version of "left alone".

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

If it's natural, why is the percentage in population increasing?

---

Im not a sociologist but I suspect it's because it's becoming increasingly more acceptable (not seen as immoral and gender roles are less important than they used to be) so fewer people are hiding it. LGBT includes bisexuals which have seen a huge spike among gen Z. The numbers I'm seeing online suggest this is the greatest contributor in recent years.

---

Or it's a choice.

---

Why would anyone choose to be something that tears so many of their families apart and half this country despises? Especially those that are Christian and are now being told they're going to hell for existing.

If being gay is a mortal sin, what's the motive if it's a choice?

Jeeper79 said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

The gay issue has bifurcated into camp normal and crazy. Being gay and acting on it through a relationship is neither unnatural nor immoral.

---

By what standard ?

---

By what standard is it not? If you say Christianity, you're welcome to your beliefs, but that doesn't make it an appropriate policy position.

---

While I'm a staunch believer that homosexual sex is unnatural, I wouldn't want to legislate it away from the bench. Nor would I want the bench to encourage and promote it.

The amount of disease and health complications coming from anal sex should be a base of deterrent. We've already seen the AIDS and monkey pox scares coming from the gay community.

Quote:

---

If being gay is a mortal sin, what's the motive if it's a choice?

---

Same appeal as adultery, orgies, S&M or anything sexually stimulating.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

If it's natural, why is the percentage in population increasing?

---

Im not a sociologist but I suspect it's because it's becoming increasingly more acceptable (not seen as immoral and gender roles are less important than they used to be) so fewer people are hiding it. LGBT includes bisexuals which have seen a huge spike among gen Z. The numbers I'm seeing online suggest this is the greatest contributor in recent years.

---

Or it's a choice.

---

Why would anyone choose to be something that tears so many of their families apart and half this country despises? Especially those that are Christian and are now being told they're going to hell for existing.

If being gay is a mortal sin, what's the motive if it's a choice?

---

If you don't think gay is becoming a cultural decision based on the increasing % of the younger generation identifying as gay, you're missing the prominence of choice in the decision.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx