Why do they have to put all this far-left propaganda in movies nowadays?

[Anonymous]

I put on 'Anyone but You' and I remember reading how Glen Powell was saying how they wanted to bring back romantic comedies, blah blah... uh, yeah... I don't remember too many rom coms centering around there being a GAY MARRIAGE, and of course everyone is cool with it and act like it's totally normal. wtf? Couldn't they just have two straight friends getting a normal marriage?

[jshm2]

They don't. You are so insecure that you interpret it all as "left" but don't bitch about "right" stuff when it is shown.

Movies are just stories made for entertainment. If you are developing opinions and politics based on entertainment media, then you are an insignificant fuckwit.

[exitseven]

There are some TV shows that i had to give up on because they pushed all this woke crap on us.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[Astarlessnightsky]

There are thousands of movies where a straight couple gets together, a few gay couple movies doesn't hurt.

No one is forcing you to watch movies you don't like.

And homosexuality is completely normal and not some far-left propaganda.

[Aimée__LJ]

Gay marriage is totally normal. It is also not propaganda.

[monorprise]

@Aimée__LJ 10,000 years of history and obvious practical problems say otherwise.

there is no point to a "gay marriage" marriage exist to protect children's natural right to their parents. Where there are no and never can be any natural parents there are no rights to protect.

[Aimée__LJ]

@monorprise what "natural right"?

[monorprise]

@Aimée__LJ
A natural right is a right that comes form nature rather than man, the only real right that can exist.

This is in contrast to artificial or man made "rights" which were originally called services/securities.

That is important to establish a foundation in the time tested nature for which we were made, upon which everything else must be build.

I have a right to something because I don't need you to exist and cooperate to have it. I can simply shoot you and do it without you. Such is what I would do in a state of nature.

In the same State of Nature while people of the same sex can be friends they cannot together produce children.

Of the 2 relationships only the one that produces an innocent 3rd party dependent of children benefits from external enforcement of of the social marriage. Likewise society as a whole really only benefits most from the protection of said children.

[Aimée__LJ]

@monorprise the existence of homosexual people doesn't mean the eradication of heterosexual people. Children will continue to be born. The world will continue spinning. Also saying it's "unnatural" is just well factually, scientifically, and morally wrong.

[monorprise]

@Aimée__LJ Really? Most all of the western populations are well on their way to self-eradication with sub-replacement birth rates. Your country for example is down to 1.4 children per woman, That means the next generation will be only 2/3rd the size of the current generation.

The rate has been dropping more and more over the decades all over the world. This isn't a projection like "global warming" its already happened, and its consequences are already here with economic problems and culture destroying immigration.

Problems which will only continue to get much worse, until such time that the culture which supports theses ideas ceases to exist and is overthrown by the imported and still actually working cultures which reject them.

You can fight mother nature all you like, but you will always lose. We have already lost.

[Aimée__LJ]

@monorprise the issue isn't homosexuality though. Birth rates are dropping because it's too expensive to have children.

[monorprise]

@Aimée__LJ Its only too expensive because people are failing to work together for want of pair-bonding, while standards of qualification have been inflated far beyond what most of the population can afford.
Which is spesficly an issue with many modern women, as men will generally sleep with anyone.
Is Global fertility problem is due to lack of pair-bonding? ↗

Costs are indeed high, but if that were really the issue, we would have gone extinct anytime between 200 and 4 million years ago when the cost in term of total effort for children were infinity higher.

The problem we have in the west is more a mental issue than a resource issue. Put simply we are not adapted to the world we created with the technology we have.

Your ideas about homosexuality are really a reflection of your self-centered divorce from what actually works in the real world. Only people in rich countries can afford to be soo deluded but even they are only coasting on a dwindling supply of past wealth, as illustrated by the decline of the west both in relative wealth as well as raw numbers.

[Aimée__LJ]

@monorprise the cost of living is currently the highest it has ever been (comparatively) and continues to get higher. I don't know wtf you are talking about or think you're onto but you're simply wrong.

[monorprise]

@Aimée__LJ
Really? Are you starving to death? Because that is how much the cost of living was for much if not most of human history. We like most species evolved to struggle simply to eat, our shelter was a cave if we were lucky, nothing at all if we were not.

This fact, this lifestyle is soo prevalent in our history it is ingrained into our DNA. The fact that we are not soo suffering or anything like that has a lot more to do with our modern problem, then the relative economic downturn in the last 5 to 40 years.

The fact that soo many of our women today can afford to live alone or without a man to actually do the back breaking work of his own farming or hunting because neither of them can afford to trade to have someone else do it. Has a lot to do with the fact that many modern women don't find most men attractive.

You never evolved for the wealth and luxury you have today.

[Aimée__LJ]

@monorprise am I starving to death? No but many are starving and struggling to put food on the table in the usa 37 million people live below the poverty line (11% of the population) in the UK 14 million people live below the poverty line (22% of the population).

Besides you're acting like homosexual people don't have babies. Lesbian couples actually have higher success rates in IVF.

[monorprise]

@Aimée__LJ

Being poor in the US generally means you have a full belly, a TV, computer and a place to live even if you don't own it.

As for the UK I've never been there but I've noticed a decade ago your GDP per-captia hovers between Mississippi and Alabama the 2 poorest states. Rather shocking as I always thought of the united kingdom as an relatively wealthy place like New England. The untied Kingdom has soo many natural advantages.

Unlike Mississippi and Alabama who have rather unfortunate geography.

But it is not, and hasn't been this century at least.

I can only guess it is because of frequent bad and overbearing goverment and the fact the poor who can't afford compliance have no where to go unlike New England or California.
Makes me wonder exactly how many brittish people would remain in the UK if they had say free trade in labor with a real market country like these united states.

[Anonymous]

they'll be normalizing child marriages soon

[Anonymous]

Its been 60 years since that was not the case.