Disney's New 'Toy Story' Spin-Off Banned in 14 Countries Over LGBT Content: Report

Moosedrool

Executive Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
9,581
Saw the movie during load shedding, the kiss was just the icing on the cake of gay marriage.... which is a nono in these countries so anyone surprised it was banned must wake the fck up already and chill.

What do you think about gay marriage?
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
21,212
Did you enjoy the movie? How do you rate it?
Was a meh "don't be so selfish redemption" movie, only kids could enjoy it.

Other than the insertion of the gay interracial (as if that matters since the gay is already there) marriage and unexplained pregnancy (which is gonna confuse the kids) it's really just another kids movie with adult themes that the kids won't understand.

Though it's kinda funny, these countries would not ban anything because of interracial mixing because they were formed from just that anyway, the kidnapping and marrying of masses of woman from all corners is standard fare. It's a different kind of conservatism than in the west or east.
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
21,212
What do you think about gay marriage?
I can't think of an angle where it's actually a net positive. It's a sign of a decadent civilization in decline, then the civilization collapses and a new conservatism is forced one way or another as an emergency measure to stabilize what is left.

This too shall pass and history will repeat in new ways.
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
22,265
Because society is sick. Divorce is an enemy not a friend, it's not the convenient way out people pretend it is.
No, society was sick. That is why people were forced to stay together and live in misery. We still have depraved people who'd like to go back to forcing others to live in misery.

Also while divorce can be hard on children anyone who thinks it is better for children grow up in a home where the adults fight with each other day and night, clearly loathing each other, needs their head examined.

Then why is it that people live their most optimal lives in this "artificial thing"?
This confuses two separate things. Yes, there is a demonstrable benefit to living in a happy, stable relationship. But that relationship does not have to be permanent. If someone's happiness instead derived from knowing that the person they're with can't leave then they're a sick individual.
 

Moosedrool

Executive Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
9,581
I can't think of an angle where it's actually a net positive. It's a sign of a decadent civilization in decline, then the civilization collapses and a new conservatism is forced one way or another as an emergency measure to stabilize what is left.

This too shall pass and history will repeat in new ways.

So we can compare your views with Islam and those of China's government?
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
21,212
So we can compare your views with Islam and those of China's government?
To a point, I am not as ignorant as to throw out the good with the bad.

If you mean executions then no I don't see the point but I can understand why they would. It's a stopgag measure meant to stem the tide, how well it works is another matter.
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
21,212
No, society was sick. That is why people were forced to stay together and live in misery. We still have depraved people who'd like to go back to forcing others to live in misery.
And now people are living together in misery AND apart in misery.... good fix. It not only did not fix the problem it brought new one's.

Also while divorce can be hard on children anyone who thinks it is better for children grow up in a home where the adults fight with each other day and night, clearly loathing each other, needs their head examined.
Then the adults should fix the causes for the fighting not keep fighting to the point of separation. It's better for children to see adults reconcile than to hate each other so much they leave.

This confuses two separate things. Yes, there is a demonstrable benefit to living in a happy, stable relationship. But that relationship does not have to be permanent. If someone's happiness instead derived from knowing that the person they're with can't leave then they're a sick individual.
If a relationship of that type is not permanent there is no point in initiating it. You can get married or you can play at getting married and then use the escape hatch when it gets uncomfortable and you have to be an adult, you cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time.

Yes there are situations where divorce is a good option but mere friction and unhappyness because you made bad life decisions is not one of them. It teaches children they can just run away when things get tough.
 

Moosedrool

Executive Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
9,581
To a point, I am not as ignorant as to throw out the good with the bad.

If you mean executions then no I don't see the point but I can understand why they would. It's a stopgag measure meant to stem the tide, how well it works is another matter.

If it works and you can cleanse the world from the gay. Would you see a point and consider it then?
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
22,265
What do you think about gay marriage?
Marriage is fundamentally a civil contract that provides a collection of rights and protections. That's the primary reason to extend it to cover homosexuals. The problem with all the nonsense of wanting to add a civil partnership law besides the fact that that is exactly what marriage is anyway is that you then have to make sure all case law and civil attitudes treat a civil partnership as exactly the same thing. They essentially wanted to create another law that would have to be worded exactly the same and include provisions stating that it must be treated in all respects as exactly the same as the civil contract called marriage. All that to keep a few crazy people who think their religion invented marriage happy.
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
21,212
Marriage is fundamentally a civil contract that provides a collection of rights and protections. That's the primary reason to extend it to cover homosexuals. The problem with all the nonsense of wanting to add a civil partnership law besides the fact that that is exactly what marriage is anyway is that you then have to make sure all case law and civil attitudes treat a civil partnership as exactly the same thing. They essentially wanted to create another law that would have to be worded exactly the same and include provisions stating that it must be treated in all respects as exactly the same as the civil contract called marriage. All that to keep a few crazy people who think their religion invented marriage happy.
Here we have a fundamental difference of definition. Keeping marriage a purely civil matter means it is merely a contract of cohabitation and nothing more.... which is not marriage as understood by the majority of the planet.
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
22,265
If a relationship of that type is not permanent there is no point in initiating it.
No point entering into any human relationships then as there is never any guarantee they are permanent. Just go live somewhere on your own, so you can avoid being tempted by the risks of human relationships.
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
21,212
Mind you, thinking about it now, I can see how casting drinking alcohol in a positive light can induce children to do it.
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
21,212
I have never seen a kid watching a kiss on a movie go
"Mmmm. I want to try that"

The response is always
"Yuck. Or gross."

The entire argument that it will make children want to try it is one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said.
Only if you think the exposure effect is short lived.
 
Top