(10-12-2021, 08:19 PM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2021, 07:59 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not here to argue if it’s “ok” to be gay or not. Some people are, most aren’t. I suppose my argument is why are we as a society changing classic comics to cater to gay people? Are gay people unable to enjoy it how it was? Do gay people only enjoy it if there is homosexual things happening? That sounds absurd! You either like it or not. Granted, I enjoy rock n roll music. But I like some rap. As a white man, am I not able to enjoy rap on its own? Should I be needing them to insert white stuff into their music? No! Otherwise, it wouldn’t be authentic. Do your thing. I either like it or don’t. Why are we shoving this lifestyle down EVERYONES throats? That’s my gripe.
I dunno, that's why I'm mostly meh about it. But I get it. Picture a world where every superhero was gay. If you were straight, wouldn't it seem awesome if one of your superheroes was written as straight? Of course it would. Now flip the mirror over.
In this hypothetical world, all I can imagine is SNL’s “Ambiguously Gay Duo” Ace and Gary, lol. That was funny. I enjoyed it. Call me crazy, but I’ve personally never gotten into comics. Not my cup of tea. Sure, I’ve seen some cartoons as a kid and watched some movies as of late. Still wasn’t my choice. Gotta watch what the wife wants sometimes. In your scenario, if all superheroes were gay, then I would would not have watched. Not my thing. Now if one was straight, well then they may have my attention if I was into that kind of thing. But if a gay one started being straight, I’d see through it and dismiss it. If they want to cater to another demographic, just create a new super hero. Don’t turn the man in steel into a man who gets steel for other men.
Okay, as I said, I’m not into comics. So I didn’t read the story just the thread title. I thought Superman turned super gay. I stand corrected, it’s his gay son that apparently got Superman’s dominant traits, thus superhero himself. So I’m wrong there.
Still doesn’t change the fact that everyone if shoving a lifestyle down the vast majority of the nation or worlds throats.
People don't really care if there's a gay superhero. They've tried it. It's not been popular. It didn't make headlines. People care because the gay agenda is hitched to mainstream staples. At least they are making it somewhat original by having it be Superman's son, but it's still coopting his popularity to advance a narrative. By gay agenda, I don't mean some secret group. I'm talking about the massive influence that gays have over the culture. If it were popular of it's own accord.... if there were a natural demand for it, they wouldn't have to use Superman as the platform for it.
(10-12-2021, 09:36 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2021, 08:19 PM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ]I dunno, that's why I'm mostly meh about it. But I get it. Picture a world where every superhero was gay. If you were straight, wouldn't it seem awesome if one of your superheroes was written as straight? Of course it would. Now flip the mirror over.
Ask yourself why you're threatened by it. You're probably going to say you're not. But if you're not, why are you worried about it? Why are you so convinced it's "wrong".
Religious beliefs.
I'll add to that scientific beliefs: developmental, biological and evolutionary (natural selection).
(10-13-2021, 11:51 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2021, 09:36 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Religious beliefs.
I'll add to that scientific beliefs: developmental, biological and evolutionary (natural selection).
you do know that gay couples can have children right?
A heterosexual human contributes half of the genetic material to a zygote
A homosexual human contributes half of the genetic material to a zygote
same-same.
(10-14-2021, 03:29 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2021, 11:51 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]
I'll add to that scientific beliefs: developmental, biological and evolutionary (natural selection).
you do know that gay couples can have children right?
A heterosexual human contributes half of the genetic material to a zygote
A homosexual human contributes half of the genetic material to a zygote
same-same.
You know that there's no heterosexual partner in a gay couple.
(10-13-2021, 11:51 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2021, 09:36 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Religious beliefs.
I'll add to that scientific beliefs: developmental, biological and evolutionary (natural selection).
Those relate to reproduction sure but they don't define human relationships or how they're expressed. So are relationships strictly about reproduction in your view or do human emotions play a part?
(10-14-2021, 06:02 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2021, 03:29 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]you do know that gay couples can have children right?
A heterosexual human contributes half of the genetic material to a zygote
A homosexual human contributes half of the genetic material to a zygote
same-same.
You know that there's no heterosexual partner in a gay couple.
There doesn't have to be. A homosexual people can have children just like heterosexual. The end result is exactly the same.
Hetero woman gets pregnant has child = gay woman gets pregnant and has child.
Hetero male provides sperm to fertilize egg - gay man provides sperm to fertilize egg.
Just think how many woman and couples have children courtesy of a gay sperm donar.
(10-14-2021, 03:46 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2021, 06:02 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You know that there's no heterosexual partner in a gay couple.
There doesn't have to be. A homosexual people can have children just like heterosexual. The end result is exactly the same.
Hetero woman gets pregnant has child = gay woman gets pregnant and has child.
Hetero male provides sperm to fertilize egg - gay man provides sperm to fertilize egg.
Just think how many woman and couples have children courtesy of a gay sperm donar.
You still realize that there's no gay couple on Earth that can have children together. It's an adoption, nothing more.
Able to gobble large [BLEEP] in a single slurp!
(10-14-2021, 04:23 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2021, 03:46 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]There doesn't have to be. A homosexual people can have children just like heterosexual. The end result is exactly the same.
Hetero woman gets pregnant has child = gay woman gets pregnant and has child.
Hetero male provides sperm to fertilize egg - gay man provides sperm to fertilize egg.
Just think how many woman and couples have children courtesy of a gay sperm donar.
You still realize that there's no gay couple on Earth that can have children together. It's an adoption, nothing more.
Of course, but being gay isn't going to stop the evolution of the species and the selection pressure to cause natural selection against gays doesn't exist. Science has removed the selection pressure that requires a male to copulate with a female.
(10-14-2021, 04:37 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2021, 04:23 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You still realize that there's no gay couple on Earth that can have children together. It's an adoption, nothing more.
Of course, but being gay isn't going to stop the evolution of the species and the selection pressure to cause natural selection against gays doesn't exist. Science has removed the selection pressure that requires a male to copulate with a female.
I don't get eggs from roosters and I don't get milk from steers. You might, but I don't.
(10-14-2021, 04:37 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2021, 04:23 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You still realize that there's no gay couple on Earth that can have children together. It's an adoption, nothing more.
Of course, but being gay isn't going to stop the evolution of the species and the selection pressure to cause natural selection against gays doesn't exist. Science has removed the selection pressure that requires a male to copulate with a female.
And yet one of those gay people's genes will have no part in the genetics of the child, which means that no, a gay couple, cannot have children together.
(10-14-2021, 04:37 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2021, 04:23 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You still realize that there's no gay couple on Earth that can have children together. It's an adoption, nothing more.
Of course, but being gay isn't going to stop the evolution of the species and the selection pressure to cause natural selection against gays doesn't exist. Science has removed the selection pressure that requires a male to copulate with a female.
Sometimes we just do it for fun.
(10-14-2021, 09:12 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2021, 04:37 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, but being gay isn't going to stop the evolution of the species and the selection pressure to cause natural selection against gays doesn't exist. Science has removed the selection pressure that requires a male to copulate with a female.
And yet one of those gay people's genes will have no part in the genetics of the child, which means that no, a gay couple, cannot have children together.
Exactly. That's not disputed. I am saying that the "scientific, biological, evolutionary" belief is a fallacy.
Regardless of how it happens, and the sexual orientation of the parties involved, continuation of the species needs a fertilized egg and functional uterus.
(10-15-2021, 01:54 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2021, 09:12 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]And yet one of those gay people's genes will have no part in the genetics of the child, which means that no, a gay couple, cannot have children together.
Exactly. That's not disputed. I am saying that the "scientific, biological, evolutionary" belief is a fallacy.
Regardless of how it happens, and the sexual orientation of the parties involved, continuation of the species needs a fertilized egg and functional uterus.
Not true. Recent advances in science have simply enabled us to artificially bypass the evolutionary impregnation process. Natural evolution "designed" us to be heterosexual.
I'm not sure I want to watch that video...