Dumbing of Age

those poor children.

Is he a toddler, what is with that pencil grip?

Attached: 1458113250937.png (1000x670, 633K)

I'm pretty sure there are churches that accept gays. What's the major stigma that church folk have with homosexuality?

stigma, stigpa

It's mostly "family values" i.e. no kids (except by adoption or surrogacy), there HAS to be a mother and father to raise a child, etc. Plus, being gay and wanting to be married is totally a new fad.

books.google.com/books?id=Kf4cs5Y0fiIC&lpg=PA246&ots=Il2FXqQ0zs&dq=nero male weddings&pg=PA246#v=onepage&q=nero male weddings&f=false
books.google.com/books?id=1ha9GgWNmy0C&lpg=PA235&ots=MLHEpanZIi&dq=chinese zhou same sex marriage&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q=shen defu&f=false

Then you've got that part of Leviticus, which is the only part anyone knows from that book, aside from maybe the part about not eating shellfish.

Short Answer - There's no telos to the sex.
Speaking Catholic, not hoohaw protestant (because who even knows at that point), there's a lot of underlying thought ripped off Aristotle. One of these thoughts is that all things have an underlying purpose (called a telos) that can be observed - Eyes are for seeing, hands are for holding and touching etc. Another belief is that all humans are wired in their nature to want what is good. Money is good because it allows for one to provide for their family, food is good because it provides nourishment. People want these things because they want what is good. However, when that want becomes focused not on obtaining the goodness the thing provides by following its telos, but instead on the pleasure associated with the thing, this altered desire is what's defined as sin. It's not obtaining what's good, and it's not good for you. Using food again as an example, when you're eating not for nourishment but solely for the pleasure of eating, that's gluttony, and that's sinful.
So with that in mind, by the Church, sex is seen as having two purposes: 1. reproduction, and 2. keeping the unity of marriage stable. However, the gays obviously aren't chasing after the first telos here. And Marriage, not just in terms of a civil union but in the religious sense which is being used (meaning the books cited here are pretty irreverent to the conversation desu), itself has a telos, which is to establish a family unit and to procreate. Gays can't do that, so gays can't marry, so the second purpose of sex also isn't being fulfilled. Therefore, Homosexual sex isn't fulfilling any of the actual purposes of sex, and instead, since it's only focused on the pleasure associated with the act, is labeled as sinful.

Why would anyone like Lucy? Legit in all universes she's boring, annoying and does nothing. If it's just being into a black girl, Sarah has her beat by all measures anyways.

Attached: dumbing_trance.png (1000x1331, 1.37M)

>If it's just being into a black girl, Sarah has her beat by all measures anyways.
What about Sierra?

>Why would anyone like Lucy?
Why wouldn't they?

Attached: 3071146%20-%20Chillguy%20David_Walkerton%20Dumbing_of_Age%20Lucy_Glenn%20Rule_63%20it%27s_walky%20we (2700x3300, 713K)

Mmm Not a footfag, but still a step up from Lucy.
Oh. You're that guy.

Fair enough. I only brought up Leviticus because it's what I see being touted the most by people who are anti-equality in marriages. As for the whole "must make kids", I know a few hetero couples who don't want kids, and plenty of gay couples who want to adopt but can't because of the "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?" brigade.

Plus, let's not even get into the hoo-hah over adelphopoiesis...

Attached: 1458904746851.png (975x667, 534K)