It is so immature, the concept that most people have about love and instantly associating love and sex interchangeably. In most cases the people who write these modern movie and television story lines are kids themselves—barely in their 30s—and they lack deep understandings about life and how humans evolve. They certainly don’t understand love—for that you need a married couple who have been together for at least 25 years—and been through a lot yet still choose to stay together. It is impossible for anybody less to write about love in a manner that is based in any kind of reality and that is certainly true of most Disney productions where they are driven by progressive values instead of tangible human motivations. Their television show Once Upon a Time finally made good on its promise to include a gay story line in season five, and that was something I had been predicting that they’d try and the result was embarrassing. I actually felt sorry for the writers and actors who had to portray the story line, which went something like this; although Mulan (Jamie Chung) revealed her unrequited love for Princess Aurora (Sarah Bolger) in season three, she wasn’t the one in a new relationship in Sunday’s episode, “Ruby Slippers.” However, she did help make it happen, and now we have Disney justifying “loves first kiss” as “love” doesn’t know any boundaries, sex or ethnicity. Love just is. Well, they are wrong.
I love a lot of things and that love does not translate into sex. I love movies, I love cars, motorcycles, and guns—I love my grandchildren, my kids—I love my life. But love and sex are not equal elements to a social paradox. Progressives to spread this gay love socialism that they have been preaching for so many years had to strip away the value of love before they could attempt to sell it the way these idiots on the show Once Upon a Time have provoked. In order to sell gay sex to the public—which has been going on for quite a long time—they had to destroy the notion of deeply committed love and attribute it to raw physical sex—the desire to integrate biologically with another human being for first the pleasure of it—then to procreate humankind with the result. Under the progressive definition of love, if a human feels compassion for another person, then they must have some sort of physical justification for that emotion. For instance—they must kiss them, or touch them in some way.
Sex does not represent love. When I see a young couple (a man and a woman) kissing at a restaurant or at a park it is a beautiful thing. When I see a couple of girls kissing in the same settings—or God forbid a couple of dudes—it is disgusting. The reason is that the man and the woman have the potential through their affection to create a family, and that is a beautiful thing to see. Without the potential for the creation of a family the physical display is simply for pleasure and it can then be disgusting—because the act becomes intrusive to our senses. Sex by itself isn’t beautiful—two fat chicks covered in tattoos and body piercings making out in an amusement park line waiting for a ride is annoying. Anybody with experience knows that what they are seeing is a short-lived emotion. But if a young girl is making out with her boyfriend and they are holding hands and hugging each other, then that can be kind of sweet. The reason is that their affections for one another can lead to the creation of a family. All of us with experience know that the public sentiments of physical expression fade away as the love grows stronger but that what they are engaging in may be the start of a new family name—and that is beautiful.
Ultimately this is why progressives are attacking traditional sex and trying to paint gay sex in a way that makes it appear to be love—because they hope to remove the value of relationships and throw that value back to the states to manage allowing people to engage in open sex with all human beings without the stigma of judgment. This was the kind of world in the dystopian novel Brave New World—where nobody really felt anything for anybody—people just engaged in sex for the pleasure of it but they did not feel the meaning of love behind it. Sex in that book was open and meaningless.
You can love a member of the same sex—two guys can love each other—but it is not appropriate for them to take that love to the barbaric level of sexual intercourse because what would be the biological point? The appropriate thing for two guys to do to show love for one another is to punch the other guy in the arm and call him a name—like “hey dick-head,” or “hello you diabolical scum bag,” followed by a smile. The reason is that the two friends are showing they have command of their biological functions and are working from a foundation of mental domination—love is in the mind, not the heart. Such relationships are able to last over many years and are a form of love. Take away the sex and love can thrive in a relationship. Sex is only a distraction to real love—it doesn’t define it. Sex is only a biological function. Love is a mental decision not related to biology. One is a function of instinct; the other is an affirmation of shared values.
As I’ve said before—even though the House of Cards is a compelling show, the gay sex is just ridiculous. They have attempted to normalize gay sex and it is just gross. Disney will face the same problem as they continue to advance the gay agenda through their feature films. When it was announced that the Green Lantern superhero was a gay character—the popularity did not increase for him. The mass population will reject such a premise because ultimately it’s gross. Nobody wants to look at gay sex—not really. For the same reason that it was always the teenage girl who survived until the end of 1980s horror films—because it is always a tragic loss to lose a girl because of the potential for life that she holds within her—gay expression is something audiences will reject because they cannot relate to the characters. Those of us with experience know that love is deeper than just physical attraction so a story cannot advance in our minds if sex is used as a substitute for love. It just doesn’t work and having two girls show their love for each other through physical attraction in Once Upon a Time comes out awkward, and it makes you want to change the channel. It leaves the viewer with a desire to turn away and move toward something else instead of sticking with a story they know will go nowhere biologically.
Hollywood has been trying to normalize the acts of gay sex for a long time and now they are really testing the fences. But all they are doing is cheapening the foundations of love that every human being craves by confusing young people with expressions of sex and calling it love. I understand that the writers of these shows haven’t lived enough to understand—and it shows in their products—but it’s not cute to see such failures exhibited as successes. People will endure the gay sex to watch a show, but it will hurt the appeal and weaken the ultimate market viability—and that is the risk that companies like Disney run by signing up for such progressive experiments. The moment that Woody and Buzz Light year announce that they have a gay love relationship the value of Toy Story drops immensely because the love that the two characters have for one another transcends sex—which is why the Toy Story films have been so successful. But playing with biological and psychological relationships in stories intended for young people, like Once Upon a Time is suicidal from a creative standpoint. I would hope that Disney would employ smarter people and not get so wrapped up in progressive politics—because it will hurt them. And I personally want Disney to succeed—so it pains me to see them make such epic mistakes. That prime time attempt to normalize gay sex on a popular television show was really stupid.
If you click on the link above, you’ll see something really……………gay.
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.