>>117186065In order to understand it, and its purpose, let's break it down.
In a heterosexual relationship, you have two complimentary pieces that make more than the sum of its parts. It produces life (See? More than the sum of its parts), and men and women are complimentary to each other. Men are natural leaders, women are natural supporters. Children don't do best without both, and people in general need what the other offers.
In a homosexual relationship, you have two of the same pieces, which provides no balance, and generally what you'll see is that one takes the role of the missing piece in the relationship, but it's never going to be close to someone naturally born for that role. This relationship doesn't produce anything lasting, and it's primarily for hedonistic purposes. Even if they were to adopt, well, if you think single mothers are harmful parents, then imagine two, who double that imbalance.
>>117186165>I feel bad for the politically unaffiliatedWhat would you have me do, Anon? If I say I don't like something, but continue to support them financially, why should they ever care? They would get the clear message that I support what they're doing, regardless of what I say. So, instead, I voice my opinion, and if they push this stuff, I don't support them.
I think this is at least partly why they push this junk at the end of these cartoons. So people can't complain. They already made their money, and then slam you with "representation" at the end, degrading their cartoon, and disrespecting the viewers who already supported them up to this point.
>I sense some projection in this post.I'm not a homosexual, but I've got a very bad porn addiction that's been ruining my life, brain, and general health, for ~20 years. I'm going to try quit again soon, and I think I'll succeed this time.
>It's the ideology behind it that's the problemAgreed, but I think the way they choose to portray homosexuality is intended to further this ideology. It's prettified.
