agent-maroon said:

---

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.

---

That doesn't compute for me. Gay people aren't just attracted to the same sex. They're sexually repulsed by the opposite sex. It's a trade off.

If you have to explain to someone why a person would choose to be something that immediately showers them with attention meanwhile is a middle finger to their family, then the guy just isn't going to get it. Because he doesn't want to get it.

texagbeliever said:

---

If you have to explain to someone why a person would choose to be something that immediately showers them with attention meanwhile is a middle finger to their family, then the guy just isn't going to get it. Because he doesn't want to get it.

---

You're acting like gays are turning gay to spite their parents. You don't think they cry when their parents don't accept or understand them. This isn't rebellion. They're not rejoicing in being outcasts.

People often do things to hurt people that also hurt themselves.

This would apply to the growing population percentage not as a reason 100% of people choose to be gay. Likely also early sexualization exposure in porn screwing up brain chemistry and absent fathers.

Jeeper79 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

If you have to explain to someone why a person would choose to be something that immediately showers them with attention meanwhile is a middle finger to their family, then the guy just isn't going to get it. Because he doesn't want to get it.

---

You're acting like gays are turning gay to spite their parents. You don't think they cry when their parents don't accept or understand them. This isn't rebellion. They're not rejoicing in being outcasts.

---

I have a dear friend with 2 daughters that are doing it for that reason. That and they have difficult breakups with high school boyfriends in their awkwardness, got to college and were introduced to the gay lifestyle and now one is a militant lesbian and the other would say she is as well.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

If you have to explain to someone why a person would choose to be something that immediately showers them with attention meanwhile is a middle finger to their family, then the guy just isn't going to get it. Because he doesn't want to get it.

---

You're acting like gays are turning gay to spite their parents. You don't think they cry when their parents don't accept or understand them. This isn't rebellion. They're not rejoicing in being outcasts.

---

I have a dear friend with 2 daughters that are doing it for that reason. That and they have difficult breakups with high school boyfriends in their awkwardness, got to college and were introduced to the gay lifestyle and now one is a militant lesbian and the other would say she is as well.

---

Sounds like your dear friend may be misreading the situation and taking it personally when it isn't about them at all. Your friend being hurt by their kids actions does not mean their kids are trying to hurt them. I do, however, suspect that their inability to accept it is hurting that relationship and making it worse..

pagerman @ work said:

---

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".

---

I don't want to legislate what people watch. I want the government to stop forcing "trans rights" down the throat of the taxpaying public. Like what you ask? Government programs to exploit children with "gender affirming care", public school teachers pushing it in their classrooms and providing closets of clothes and chest binders for girls. Public libraries holding drag shows (recruiting events) in the guise of "story time". Public schools requiring girls to compete against boys that are pretending to be girls. ESG, DEI and all of the ways this crap is forced on the American public BY the government.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

If you have to explain to someone why a person would choose to be something that immediately showers them with attention meanwhile is a middle finger to their family, then the guy just isn't going to get it. Because he doesn't want to get it.

---

You're acting like gays are turning gay to spite their parents. You don't think they cry when their parents don't accept or understand them. This isn't rebellion. They're not rejoicing in being outcasts.

---

I have a dear friend with 2 daughters that are doing it for that reason. That and they have difficult breakups with high school boyfriends in their awkwardness, got to college and were introduced to the gay lifestyle and now one is a militant lesbian and the other would say she is as well.

---

Sounds like your dear friend may be misreading the situation and taking it personally when it isn't about them at all (and is probably also not accepting them).

---

He doesn't feel that way at all. It's my read as outsider who knows them all well. He's a conservative Republican and has struggled in his relationship with his oldest daughter...who's now the militant progressive lesbian who lords it over the family in a completely disrespectful way.

Bob Lee said:

---

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.

---

A husband and a wife doing things in the bedroom beyond "normal" is not immoral. Nor husband / husband, wife / wife. People in relationships getting each other off in the manner they choose just isn't immoral. When it comes to that there isnt one moral hole and two immoral ones. That has nothing to do with porn, promiscuity, or age inappropriate content being shown to children.

Same sex marriages are the same as marriages in every respect. But not in their ability to procreate (which biologically doesn't actually require commitment). And just because two gay people can live with each other and be good parents doesn't mean that the two sexes are the same. Both sexes have unique qualities they bring to parenthood. I can hold the position that gay couples should be able to marry while acknowledging that heterosexual parenthood > homosexual parenthood > single parenting > ward of the state.

https://texags.com/forums/12/topics/3372561/last#last

A man's wife plans to leave them because she realized she is gay. In the same thread, there are claims that human body can't differentiate between straight/gay sexual satisfaction. TexAgs knows things

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

https://texags.com/forums/12/topics/3372561/last#last

A man's wife plans to leave them because she realized she is gay. In the same thread, there are claims that human body can't differentiate between straight/gay sexual satisfaction. TexAgs knows things

---

Ghost, thanks for bringing another example of brokenness to the forefront.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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.

---

A husband and a wife doing things in the bedroom beyond "normal" is not immoral. Nor husband / husband, wife / wife. People in relationships getting each other off in the manner they choose just isn't immoral. When it comes to that there isnt one moral hole and two immoral ones. That has nothing to do with porn, promiscuity, or age inappropriate content being shown to children.

Same sex marriages are the same as marriages in every respect. But not in their ability to procreate (which biologically doesn't actually require commitment). And just because two gay people can live with each other and be good parents doesn't mean that the two sexes are the same with unique qualities they bring to parenthood. I can hold the position that gay couples should be able to marry while acknowledging that heterosexual parenthood > homosexual parenthood > single parenting > ward of the state.

---

Same sex relationships are just like marriages (except for their ability to procreate under any circumstance) is about the same as "humans are exactly like birds except for their ability to fly, and generally the entire essence of what it is to be bird and human are different. Other than that, they're no different.

Are these moral declaratives about human sexuality rooted in anything objective? In truth? Do you care?

TXAGFAN 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.

---

Thank god for gay adoption, would be a lot more kids in the system.

Not very pro choice of you to be against that.

---

Actually families of a male and female parent have a very hard time adopting kids. Preference should be given ALWAYS these families but they are not.

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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.

---

A husband and a wife doing things in the bedroom beyond "normal" is not immoral. Nor husband / husband, wife / wife. People in relationships getting each other off in the manner they choose just isn't immoral. When it comes to that there isnt one moral hole and two immoral ones. That has nothing to do with porn, promiscuity, or age inappropriate content being shown to children.

Same sex marriages are the same as marriages in every respect. But not in their ability to procreate (which biologically doesn't actually require commitment). And just because two gay people can live with each other and be good parents doesn't mean that the two sexes are the same with unique qualities they bring to parenthood. I can hold the position that gay couples should be able to marry while acknowledging that heterosexual parenthood > homosexual parenthood > single parenting > ward of the state.

---

Same sex relationships are just like marriages (except for their ability to procreate under any circumstance) is about the same as "humans are exactly like birds except for their ability to fly, and generally the entire essence of what it is to be bird and human are different. Other than that, they're no different.

Are these moral declaratives about human sexuality rooted in anything objective? In truth? Do you care?

---

This is asinine. Take out the sex from marriage and what's left? Support, companionship, shared resources, romantic love, amongst other things. Saying that when gay people do those things it is completely unrecognizable and totally different from straight people is just out there in left field. Put in the sex, apart from trying to conceive a child (which in most couples is likely not the point of sex 98% of time), and we're just left with humans expressing their love and innate sexual needs with a partner.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

If you have to explain to someone why a person would choose to be something that immediately showers them with attention meanwhile is a middle finger to their family, then the guy just isn't going to get it. Because he doesn't want to get it.

---

You're acting like gays are turning gay to spite their parents. You don't think they cry when their parents don't accept or understand them. This isn't rebellion. They're not rejoicing in being outcasts.

---

I have a dear friend with 2 daughters that are doing it for that reason. That and they have difficult breakups with high school boyfriends in their awkwardness, got to college and were introduced to the gay lifestyle and now one is a militant lesbian and the other would say she is as well.

---

Sounds like your dear friend may be misreading the situation and taking it personally when it isn't about them at all. Your friend being hurt by their kids actions does not mean their kids are trying to hurt them. I do, however, suspect that their inability to accept it is hurting that relationship and making it worse..

---

Kids don't know how to have meaningful friendships without a relationship. It leads to a lot of bad situations and sounds like that's what happened. It's consistent with what I hear from my friends and family that teach high school. A girl may not be attracted to any boys she knows so she assumes she's a lesbian because she's supposed to be attracted to someone and has friendships she appreciates with other girls.

Kids aren't allowed the space to not declare sexuality or gender and they go anywhere they feel affirmation.

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?

---

There are dwarf and two headed calves born in nature, but that is certainly nothing to strive for or encourage.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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.

---

A husband and a wife doing things in the bedroom beyond "normal" is not immoral. Nor husband / husband, wife / wife. People in relationships getting each other off in the manner they choose just isn't immoral. When it comes to that there isnt one moral hole and two immoral ones. That has nothing to do with porn, promiscuity, or age inappropriate content being shown to children.

Same sex marriages are the same as marriages in every respect. But not in their ability to procreate (which biologically doesn't actually require commitment). And just because two gay people can live with each other and be good parents doesn't mean that the two sexes are the same with unique qualities they bring to parenthood. I can hold the position that gay couples should be able to marry while acknowledging that heterosexual parenthood > homosexual parenthood > single parenting > ward of the state.

---

Same sex relationships are just like marriages (except for their ability to procreate under any circumstance) is about the same as "humans are exactly like birds except for their ability to fly, and generally the entire essence of what it is to be bird and human are different. Other than that, they're no different.

Are these moral declaratives about human sexuality rooted in anything objective? In truth? Do you care?

---

This is asinine. Take out the sex from marriage and what's left? Support, companionship, shared resources, romantic love, amongst other things. Saying that when gay people do those things it is completely unrecognizable and totally different from straight people is just out there in left field. Put in the sex, apart from trying to conceive a child (which in most couples is likely not the point of sex 98% of time), and we're just left with humans expressing their love and innate sexual needs with a partner.

---

You and I have very different notions of marriage. There is no "take the sex out of marriage". Consummation through the marital act is part and parcel of marriage. It's essential to it.

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

Admiral Adama said:

---

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

---

I, too, anchor all my ideas in the reality of birth control and ignore human history prior to the 1900s.

AGC said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

---

I, too, anchor all my ideas in the reality of birth control and ignore human history prior to the 1900s.

---

Because prior to 1900s, the only reason that anyone ever had sex was to make a baby. Oh yeah, totally, that makes sense.

Admiral Adama said:

---

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

---

Yes. It's not always JUST about having a child. But having children is unquestionably a purpose of sex, and it's an absolute impossibility for same sex couplings, which is how we all know (some of us pretend not to know), that homosexual relationships are Disordered by their very nature. Pleasure is a happy consequence of sex, but that isn't its purpose, and we should not think about pleasure as an end unto itself. That's the definition of hedonism.

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

---

Yes. It's not always JUST about having a child. But having children is unquestionably a purpose of sex, and it's an absolute impossibility for same sex couplings, which is how we all know (some of us pretend not to know), that homosexual relationships are Disordered by their very nature. Pleasure is a happy consequence of sex, but that isn't its purpose, and we should not think about pleasure as an end unto itself. That's the definition of hedonism.

---

Why shouldn't we think about pleasure as an end unto itself sometimes? If that's the only way we live our life, of course that's not meaningful , but you act like it's always some kind of frivolous and immoral act to enjoy something because it's fun. That seems like a really unpleasant way to go through life.

Have all the gay sex you want, just leave the kids out of it.

The real reason that gays, trans, whatever, want to involve kids is because nature's supply through procreation does not meet the demand, therefore new gays, trans, whatever must be fabricated. Adults set in their way don't make good raw material for this.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

---

Yes. It's not always JUST about having a child. But having children is unquestionably a purpose of sex, and it's an absolute impossibility for same sex couplings, which is how we all know (some of us pretend not to know), that homosexual relationships are Disordered by their very nature. Pleasure is a happy consequence of sex, but that isn't its purpose, and we should not think about pleasure as an end unto itself. That's the definition of hedonism.

---

Why shouldn't we think about pleasure as an end unto itself sometimes? If that's the only way we live our life, of course that's not meaningful , but you act like it's always some kind of frivolous and immoral act to enjoy something because it's fun. That seems like a really unpleasant way to go through life.

---

As long as our pursuit of pleasure doesn't involve things that are intrinsically evil or disordered, then fine.

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

---

Yes. It's not always JUST about having a child. But having children is unquestionably a purpose of sex, and it's an absolute impossibility for same sex couplings, which is how we all know (some of us pretend not to know), that homosexual relationships are Disordered by their very nature. Pleasure is a happy consequence of sex, but that isn't its purpose, and we should not think about pleasure as an end unto itself. That's the definition of hedonism.

---

Why shouldn't we think about pleasure as an end unto itself sometimes? If that's the only way we live our life, of course that's not meaningful , but you act like it's always some kind of frivolous and immoral act to enjoy something because it's fun. That seems like a really unpleasant way to go through life.

---

As long as our pursuit of pleasure doesn't involve things that are intrinsically evil or disordered, then fine.

---

I've been trying to keep this PG-13, but I'm going to play the we're all adults card and can maturely discuss sex. I think it's strains credulity to state that a straight married couple engaging in oral or anal sex is 'evil' or 'disordered'. Or that a postmenopausal woman or infertile couple having sex are acting out of bounds of God's intentions. That adults have sex for pleasure and do so in different ways does not make it inherently moral or immoral. And if it's not evil for a straight couple to have sex this way, I fail to see why we should call it evil for gay people to do the same thing.

When it comes to how we talk about different relationships with small children, I think it's totally fine to note that gay people exist, and if they sometimes get married and live together. Doing that is not an invitation discuss sodomy any more than showing a dinosaur mommy and daddy living together is an invitation to discuss sex straight sex.

You might find this shocking, but by many religious moral codes, it is sinful for a married couple to engage in the same sexual practices as homosexual couples. So sorry, at least for those belief systems, there isn't a double standard as you would argue.

Admiral Adama said:

---

AGC said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

---

I, too, anchor all my ideas in the reality of birth control and ignore human history prior to the 1900s.

---

Because prior to 1900s, the only reason that anyone ever had sex was to make a baby. Oh yeah, totally, that makes sense.

---

The concept of divorcing the two things as an either or with one never leading to the other or being an ultimate outcome is anachronistic. Sex and children have always been linked whether one wanted them or not.

Since we're being adults and all that, I'm going to play the anatomy "card". The digestive tract is meant to be one-way directionally. Stomach contents coming out the oral cavity is pathological. Forcing foreign objects past the anal sphincter into the rectum is also pathological. You can make a case for oral sex to be relatively harmless, but there is no way that the butt stuff isn't harmful at some level.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

---

Yes. It's not always JUST about having a child. But having children is unquestionably a purpose of sex, and it's an absolute impossibility for same sex couplings, which is how we all know (some of us pretend not to know), that homosexual relationships are Disordered by their very nature. Pleasure is a happy consequence of sex, but that isn't its purpose, and we should not think about pleasure as an end unto itself. That's the definition of hedonism.

---

Why shouldn't we think about pleasure as an end unto itself sometimes? If that's the only way we live our life, of course that's not meaningful , but you act like it's always some kind of frivolous and immoral act to enjoy something because it's fun. That seems like a really unpleasant way to go through life.

---

As long as our pursuit of pleasure doesn't involve things that are intrinsically evil or disordered, then fine.

---

I've been trying to keep this PG-13, but I'm going to play the we're all adults card and can maturely discuss sex. I think it's strains credulity to state that a straight married couple engaging in oral or anal sex is 'evil' or 'disordered'. Or that a postmenopausal woman or infertile couple having sex are acting out of bounds of God's intentions. That adults have sex for pleasure and do so in different ways does not make it inherently moral or immoral. And if it's not evil for a straight couple to have sex this way, I fail to see why we should call it evil for gay people to do the same thing.

When it comes to how we talk about different relationships with small children, I think it's totally fine to note that gay people exist, and if they sometimes get married and live together. Doing that is not an invitation discuss sodomy any more than showing a dinosaur mommy and daddy living together is an invitation to discuss sex straight sex.

---

Yeah, I think you're going to have to defend the premise. Everything you're saying rests on "disordered sex is fine". If you're a hedonist, then fine. Just say that.

I know it's crazy to think that not everyone thinks that all manner of pleasure is at least morally ambiguous, but not everyone does.

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

---

Yes. It's not always JUST about having a child. But having children is unquestionably a purpose of sex, and it's an absolute impossibility for same sex couplings, which is how we all know (some of us pretend not to know), that homosexual relationships are Disordered by their very nature. Pleasure is a happy consequence of sex, but that isn't its purpose, and we should not think about pleasure as an end unto itself. That's the definition of hedonism.

---

Why shouldn't we think about pleasure as an end unto itself sometimes? If that's the only way we live our life, of course that's not meaningful , but you act like it's always some kind of frivolous and immoral act to enjoy something because it's fun. That seems like a really unpleasant way to go through life.

---

As long as our pursuit of pleasure doesn't involve things that are intrinsically evil or disordered, then fine.

---

I've been trying to keep this PG-13, but I'm going to play the we're all adults card and can maturely discuss sex. I think it's strains credulity to state that a straight married couple engaging in oral or anal sex is 'evil' or 'disordered'. Or that a postmenopausal woman or infertile couple having sex are acting out of bounds of God's intentions. That adults have sex for pleasure and do so in different ways does not make it inherently moral or immoral. And if it's not evil for a straight couple to have sex this way, I fail to see why we should call it evil for gay people to do the same thing.

When it comes to how we talk about different relationships with small children, I think it's totally fine to note that gay people exist, and if they sometimes get married and live together. Doing that is not an invitation discuss sodomy any more than showing a dinosaur mommy and daddy living together is an invitation to discuss sex straight sex.

---

Yeah, I think you're going to have to defend the premise. Everything you're saying rests on "disordered sex is fine". If you're a hedonist, then fine. Just say that.

I know it's crazy to think that not everyone thinks that all manner of pleasure is at least morally ambiguous, but not everyone does.

---

You're resting on a premise that 'disordered' sex is not fine, but you have an exactly given a reason for this. I'm not calling it fine or not fine. I'm calling it amoral, neither good nor bad.

You seem to be distrustful of pleasure, ipso facto. That any form of pleasure for its own sake, might result in hedonism. I don't think that we should be fearful that anytime we ride a roller coaster, eat a slice of cheesecake, or take a vacation to Hawaii, we are in danger of giving into our pleasure impulses and might be acting hedonistically and therefore sinfully.

The difference being, that another person is necessarily involved in a very personal, private, and intimate manner.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

We agree. Sex is an important part of marriage. And sex in most relationships is almost always not just about having a child. Acknowledging that adults have sex for pleasure and not just procreation does not diminish a marriage in any way.

---

Yes. It's not always JUST about having a child. But having children is unquestionably a purpose of sex, and it's an absolute impossibility for same sex couplings, which is how we all know (some of us pretend not to know), that homosexual relationships are Disordered by their very nature. Pleasure is a happy consequence of sex, but that isn't its purpose, and we should not think about pleasure as an end unto itself. That's the definition of hedonism.

---

Why shouldn't we think about pleasure as an end unto itself sometimes? If that's the only way we live our life, of course that's not meaningful , but you act like it's always some kind of frivolous and immoral act to enjoy something because it's fun. That seems like a really unpleasant way to go through life.

---

As long as our pursuit of pleasure doesn't involve things that are intrinsically evil or disordered, then fine.

---

I've been trying to keep this PG-13, but I'm going to play the we're all adults card and can maturely discuss sex. I think it's strains credulity to state that a straight married couple engaging in oral or anal sex is 'evil' or 'disordered'. Or that a postmenopausal woman or infertile couple having sex are acting out of bounds of God's intentions. That adults have sex for pleasure and do so in different ways does not make it inherently moral or immoral. And if it's not evil for a straight couple to have sex this way, I fail to see why we should call it evil for gay people to do the same thing.

When it comes to how we talk about different relationships with small children, I think it's totally fine to note that gay people exist, and if they sometimes get married and live together. Doing that is not an invitation discuss sodomy any more than showing a dinosaur mommy and daddy living together is an invitation to discuss sex straight sex.

---

Yeah, I think you're going to have to defend the premise. Everything you're saying rests on "disordered sex is fine". If you're a hedonist, then fine. Just say that.

I know it's crazy to think that not everyone thinks that all manner of pleasure is at least morally ambiguous, but not everyone does.

---

You're resting on a premise that 'disordered' sex is not fine, but you have an exactly given a reason for this. I'm not calling it fine or not fine. I'm calling it amoral, neither good nor bad.

You seem to be distrustful of pleasure, ipso facto. That any form of pleasure for its own sake, might result in hedonism. I don't think that we should be fearful that anytime we ride a roller coaster, eat a slice of cheesecake, or take a vacation to Hawaii, we are in danger of giving into our pleasure impulses and might be acting hedonistically and therefore sinfully.

---

I'm not mistrustful of pleasure. I just don't let the pursuit of pleasure rule over the rational will. I cite to natural law as an objective truth standard against which I can definitively say homosexual relationships are Disordered and immoral. You can cite no such objective standard other than that the good is just pleasure itself.

AGHouston11 said:

---

TXAGFAN 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.

---

Thank god for gay adoption, would be a lot more kids in the system.

Not very pro choice of you to be against that.

---

Actually families of a male and female parent have a very hard time adopting kids. Preference should be given ALWAYS these families but they are not.

---

Have you gone through adoption? Where are you getting this? In fact, I've encountered multiple agencies which expressly forbid adoptions by anyone other than a heterosexual couple.

I'm fairly certain you can't definitively say that homosexuality is out of bounds in the natural law definition. Homosexuality is observable in nature, both in animals and humans, throughout recorded history. It might not be common, but it is not unnatural.

I also think, explaining, and rationalizing away homosexuality as exclusively a pursuit of pleasure cheapens the actual reasons that people partner and share lives together.