Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin, or even if I'm wrong not nearly worth the effort put towards it by western Christianity. You'd think issues like divorce, adultery, materialism, or other sins discussed exponentially more in the Bible (and by Jesus in particular) that affect Christians far more directly would be a better use of the time and effort.

---

I also don't see anyone advocating for the other sins you mentioned in your post.

---

I don't see anyone giving much of a **** about them as compared to the histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Quote:

---

I really think a lot of people just ferment so much over time in their own little self-reinforcing group think bubbles that they completely lose touch with average Americans and can't possibly understand why everyone else doesn't see the world exactly the way they do.

---

You do see the elephant sized flaw in this argument?

---

No I do not. Not at all. I also don't want swingers injecting swinger relationships on my child's shows...is that such a crime? Of course not, because you don't see swingers as a "protected victim class" so it's not bigoted if I want to shield my children from that to a certain degree. I am in-line with decades...no, centuries...of traditional norms and standards. The Hollywood hipsters who think gay and non-binary teachers should discuss their lifestyles with 2nd graders behind parents backs are the ones who have been conditioned by their bubbles.

---

That was quite the non sequitur.

The fact that you frequent the politics board then talk about others not being aware of their bubbles is ironic, to say the least.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

I may be, but as I mentioned I've decided to err on the side of showing love to people who have often been ostracized and I'll own that. And if it's not greater than any other sin, the effort given towards it certainly is.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin, or even if I'm wrong not nearly worth the effort put towards it by western Christianity. You'd think issues like divorce, adultery, materialism, or other sins discussed exponentially more in the Bible (and by Jesus in particular) that affect Christians far more directly would be a better use of the time and effort.

---

I also don't see anyone advocating for the other sins you mentioned in your post.

---

I don't see anyone giving much of a **** about them as compared to the histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.

---

You seem really lost. Also really emotional for some reason.

Nobody on this thread, and 99% of people in general, don't care that gays are "allowed to freely exist". Good grief.

The discussion was about children and children's entertainment. Take your histrionic garbage elsewhere.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

Oh **** off with that nonsense

Quote:

---

I may be, but as I mentioned I've decided to err on the side of showing love to people

---

That's good. I'm the same way. However, I do understand parents not wanting it in children's entertainment. I don't get why that gets turned into " histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.". People keep dragging in emotional gibberish "arguments" nobody is making to muddy up the discussion.

Madmarttigan said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

Oh **** off with that nonsense

---

Huh?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin, or even if I'm wrong not nearly worth the effort put towards it by western Christianity. You'd think issues like divorce, adultery, materialism, or other sins discussed exponentially more in the Bible (and by Jesus in particular) that affect Christians far more directly would be a better use of the time and effort.

---

I also don't see anyone advocating for the other sins you mentioned in your post.

---

I don't see anyone giving much of a **** about them as compared to the histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.

---

Because zero movies or shows that my child watches inject or glorify adultery or divorce. If adultery or swinging or anything like that was regularly presented, I would DEFINITELY have a problem with that.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

Like wearing clothing woven from more than one kind of cloth? Or allowing women to teach? Or eating pork? Or mixing meat and dairy? Or allowing a woman to cut her hair short? Or going near a woman who is menstrating?

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

I may be, but as I mentioned I've decided to err on the side of showing love to people who have often been ostracized and I'll own that. And if it's not greater than any other sin, the effort given towards it certainly is.

---

You say that as if it makes you special, as if people who hold diff opinions than you don't do that. That's how I treat everyone. That's how treated the trans black "woman" at Macy's not long ago. Nothing but genuine love.

I still know deep down he is a man and I also don't want to see him on sesame street in the mornings with my little girl.

bluefire579 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

Like wearing clothing woven from more than one kind of cloth? Or allowing women to teach? Or eating pork? Or mixing meat and dairy? Or allowing a woman to cut her hair short? Or going near a woman who is menstrating?

---

What do you have against the Jews? That has NOTHING to do with Christians.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I may be, but as I mentioned I've decided to err on the side of showing love to people

---

That's good. I'm the same way. However, I do understand parents not wanting it in children's entertainment. I don't get why that gets turned into " histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.". People keep dragging in emotional gibberish "arguments" nobody is making to muddy up the discussion.

---

A peck in a PG rated film is pretty much freely getting to exist in my book.

Though per others who have responded to me I'm apparently advocating for extensive LGBTQ content in preschool programming so that injecting emotional jibberish arguments cuts both ways.

And while you and others here may claim that you're fine with gay people (and very well may be, I'm not disputing that). you can't argue that the general evangelical response to homosexuality is often quite vitriolic.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

I may be, but as I mentioned I've decided to err on the side of showing love to people who have often been ostracized and I'll own that. And if it's not greater than any other sin, the effort given towards it certainly is.

---

You say that as if it makes you special, as if people who hold diff opinions than you don't do that. That's how I treat everyone. That's how treated the trans black "woman" at Macy's not long ago. Nothing but genuine love.

I still know deep down he is a man and I also don't want to see him on sesame street in the mornings with my little girl.

---

I actually have friends who are gay, I'm not treating saying please and thank you to someone as a moral victory.

And you very well be the most lovely person, but acting like the general Christian response to the LGBTQ community is genuine love and compassion is novel to say the least.

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I may be, but as I mentioned I've decided to err on the side of showing love to people

---

That's good. I'm the same way. However, I do understand parents not wanting it in children's entertainment. I don't get why that gets turned into " histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.". People keep dragging in emotional gibberish "arguments" nobody is making to muddy up the discussion.

---

A peck in a PG rated film is pretty much freely getting to exist in my book.

---

Would you feel differently if a guy kissed the wife on his right and then the wife on his left? Or if two swinger couples took turns kissing each other? Genuinely curious. To me, those are consenting adults as well and how can we say love isn't love in those instances?

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

bluefire579 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

Like wearing clothing woven from more than one kind of cloth? Or allowing women to teach? Or eating pork? Or mixing meat and dairy? Or allowing a woman to cut her hair short? Or going near a woman who is menstrating?

---

What do you have against the Jews? That has NOTHING to do with Christians.

---

I guess only half of what the bible says actually applies then?

Btw, two of those are directly from the New Testament.

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

I may be, but as I mentioned I've decided to err on the side of showing love to people who have often been ostracized and I'll own that. And if it's not greater than any other sin, the effort given towards it certainly is.

---

You say that as if it makes you special, as if people who hold diff opinions than you don't do that. That's how I treat everyone. That's how treated the trans black "woman" at Macy's not long ago. Nothing but genuine love.

I still know deep down he is a man and I also don't want to see him on sesame street in the mornings with my little girl.

---

I actually have friends who are gay, I'm not treating saying please and thank you to someone as a moral victory.

And you very well be the most lovely person, but acting like the general Christian response to the LGBTQ community is genuine love and compassion is novel to say the least.

---

Meh, people online get heated on these types of debates (on both sides) and take a harsher tone than IRL. Again, it's a diff discussion when we are talking about children being involved.

I know and love numerous gay people. Just like you. I avoid conversations with them about this type of stuff for the most part, but have a gay coworker who is very conservative and hates all of this sh**. Especially the trans sports stuff and "fam friendly drag queen" nonsense.

bluefire579 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

bluefire579 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

Like wearing clothing woven from more than one kind of cloth? Or allowing women to teach? Or eating pork? Or mixing meat and dairy? Or allowing a woman to cut her hair short? Or going near a woman who is menstrating?

---

What do you have against the Jews? That has NOTHING to do with Christians.

---

I guess only half of what the bible says actually applies then?

Btw, two of those are directly from the New Testament.

---

You really thought Mosaic law applied to Christians? It doesn't even apply to Jews today. But it was never intended to apply to Christians. Sorry most Christian churches don't allow women to be preachers. Not sure what to tell you there. At least we're not Islam???

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

I may be, but as I mentioned I've decided to err on the side of showing love to people who have often been ostracized and I'll own that. And if it's not greater than any other sin, the effort given towards it certainly is.

---

You say that as if it makes you special, as if people who hold diff opinions than you don't do that. That's how I treat everyone. That's how treated the trans black "woman" at Macy's not long ago. Nothing but genuine love.

I still know deep down he is a man and I also don't want to see him on sesame street in the mornings with my little girl.

---

I actually have friends who are gay, I'm not treating saying please and thank you to someone as a moral victory.

And you very well be the most lovely person, but acting like the general Christian response to the LGBTQ community is genuine love and compassion is novel to say the least.

---

Meh, people online get heated on these types of debates (on both sides) and take a harsher tone than IRL. Again, it's a diff discussion when we are talking about children being involved.

I know and love numerous gay people. Just like you. I avoid conversations with them about this type of stuff for the most part, but have a gay coworker who is very conservative and hates all of this sh**. Especially the trans sports stuff and "fam friendly drag queen" nonsense.

---

I am talking about in real life though, you know as well as I do that there's large segments of Christianity that are VERY anti LGBT everything and do not make any effort to be loving and compassionate.

And just a thought, but if you and I are treating different people similarly and our main point of difference is I don't have an issue with a quick kiss in a PG movie, maybe continuing to tell all of us "libs" that we're dragging down society, want to load up preschool tv with homosexual content (which no one has talked about except you brining it up multiple times), taking our toddlers to drag brunches, etc., isn't a fair assumption?

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

bluefire579 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

bluefire579 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

Like wearing clothing woven from more than one kind of cloth? Or allowing women to teach? Or eating pork? Or mixing meat and dairy? Or allowing a woman to cut her hair short? Or going near a woman who is menstrating?

---

What do you have against the Jews? That has NOTHING to do with Christians.

---

I guess only half of what the bible says actually applies then?

Btw, two of those are directly from the New Testament.

---

You really thought Mosaic law applied to Christians? It doesn't even apply to Jews today. But it was never intended to apply to Christians. Sorry most Christian churches don't allow women to be preachers. Not sure what to tell you there. At least we're not Islam???

---

This will surprise many Jews.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

bluefire579 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

bluefire579 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

Like wearing clothing woven from more than one kind of cloth? Or allowing women to teach? Or eating pork? Or mixing meat and dairy? Or allowing a woman to cut her hair short? Or going near a woman who is menstrating?

---

What do you have against the Jews? That has NOTHING to do with Christians.

---

I guess only half of what the bible says actually applies then?

Btw, two of those are directly from the New Testament.

---

You really thought Mosaic law applied to Christians? It doesn't even apply to Jews today. But it was never intended to apply to Christians. Sorry most Christian churches don't allow women to be preachers. Not sure what to tell you there. At least we're not Islam???

---

I mean, the guy I responded to was saying you don't get to pick and choose, while you're literally defending picking and choosing. But y'all sort that out between yourselves, I don't really care to give any more brainpower to this argument

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin, or even if I'm wrong not nearly worth the effort put towards it by western Christianity. You'd think issues like divorce, adultery, materialism, or other sins discussed exponentially more in the Bible (and by Jesus in particular) that affect Christians far more directly would be a better use of the time and effort.

---

I also don't see anyone advocating for the other sins you mentioned in your post.

---

I don't see anyone giving much of a **** about them as compared to the histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.

---

You seem really lost. Also really emotional for some reason.

Nobody on this thread, and 99% of people in general, don't care that gays are "allowed to freely exist". Good grief.

The discussion was about children and children's entertainment. Take your histrionic garbage elsewhere.

---

Really? Because a raft of laws attacking LGBTQ people are passing left and right in conservative states under the guise of "protecting children." Sure seems like you have a different definition of "freely exist" than those words would suggest.

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

maybe continuing to tell all of us "libs" that we're dragging down society, want to load up preschool tv with homosexual content (which no one has talked about except you brining it up multiple times), taking our toddlers to drag brunches, etc., isn't a fair assumption?

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I don't know about "libs." But you do realize Disney executives were caught on camera talking about their "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" and adding "queerness to children's programming," with one of the company's presidents saying she wanted 50 percent of the characters in Disney productions to be LGBTQIA or racial minorities by the end of 2022?

Disney even ended gendered greetings at its parks, which had existed for decades, to be more "inclusive."

People aren't making this stuff up. This is the company's stated goal.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Really? Because a raft of laws attacking LGBTQ people are passing left and right in conservative states under the guise of "protecting children."

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

bluefire579 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

bluefire579 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin

---

Yikes. You'd be wrong.

It's not any greater than any other sin but you certainly don't get to pick and choose.

---

Like wearing clothing woven from more than one kind of cloth? Or allowing women to teach? Or eating pork? Or mixing meat and dairy? Or allowing a woman to cut her hair short? Or going near a woman who is menstrating?

---

What do you have against the Jews? That has NOTHING to do with Christians.

---

I guess only half of what the bible says actually applies then?

Btw, two of those are directly from the New Testament.

---

You really thought Mosaic law applied to Christians? It doesn't even apply to Jews today. But it was never intended to apply to Christians. Sorry most Christian churches don't allow women to be preachers. Not sure what to tell you there. At least we're not Islam???

---

This will surprise many Jews.

---

You do not know a single Jew that follows even close to the full scope of ancient Jewish law. No one here does.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin, or even if I'm wrong not nearly worth the effort put towards it by western Christianity. You'd think issues like divorce, adultery, materialism, or other sins discussed exponentially more in the Bible (and by Jesus in particular) that affect Christians far more directly would be a better use of the time and effort.

---

I also don't see anyone advocating for the other sins you mentioned in your post.

---

I don't see anyone giving much of a **** about them as compared to the histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.

---

You seem really lost. Also really emotional for some reason.

Nobody on this thread, and 99% of people in general, don't care that gays are "allowed to freely exist". Good grief.

The discussion was about children and children's entertainment. Take your histrionic garbage elsewhere.

---

Really? Because a raft of laws attacking LGBTQ people are passing left and right in conservative states under the guise of "protecting children."

---

LOL examples? I am guessing you think there is such a thing as the "don't say gay bill"?

Colorado just passed a law becoming a safe haven for children from other states who want to have their breasts removed and undergo irreversible puberty blocker therapy without parental consent. Children that may be going through a phase and can't consent to buying cigarettes or getting a tattoo. I suppose that is "compassion" in your eyes?

EclipseAg said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

maybe continuing to tell all of us "libs" that we're dragging down society, want to load up preschool tv with homosexual content (which no one has talked about except you brining it up multiple times), taking our toddlers to drag brunches, etc., isn't a fair assumption?

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I don't know about "libs." But you do realize Disney executives were caught on camera talking about their "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" and adding "queerness to children's programming," with one of the company's presidents saying she wanted 50 percent of the characters in Disney productions to be LGBTQIA or racial minorities by the end of 2022?

Disney even ended gendered greetings at its parks, which had existed for decades, to be more "inclusive."

People aren't making this stuff up. This is the company's stated goal.

---

Just for those who haven't seen it...

https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/2022/3/30/disney-execs-promote-not-so-secret-gay-agenda-leaked-internal-vid

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin, or even if I'm wrong not nearly worth the effort put towards it by western Christianity. You'd think issues like divorce, adultery, materialism, or other sins discussed exponentially more in the Bible (and by Jesus in particular) that affect Christians far more directly would be a better use of the time and effort.

---

I also don't see anyone advocating for the other sins you mentioned in your post.

---

I don't see anyone giving much of a **** about them as compared to the histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.

---

You seem really lost. Also really emotional for some reason.

Nobody on this thread, and 99% of people in general, don't care that gays are "allowed to freely exist". Good grief.

The discussion was about children and children's entertainment. Take your histrionic garbage elsewhere.

---

Say it wasn't two characters in a kids movie y'all were talking about, but a married couple with their own kids at a park. If it's a man and woman and they kiss, how do you react? What conversation do you have with your child? And if it's a gay couple how do you react? What conversation do you have with your child?

Hopefully your two sets of answers aren't different, else I'd call BS on your claim that you want to allow gay people to freely exist.

If your answers are the same, then I'd ask why you find a movie threatening but real life not?

EclipseAg said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

maybe continuing to tell all of us "libs" that we're dragging down society, want to load up preschool tv with homosexual content (which no one has talked about except you brining it up multiple times), taking our toddlers to drag brunches, etc., isn't a fair assumption?

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I don't know about "libs." But you do realize Disney executives were caught on camera talking about their "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" and adding "queerness to children's programming," with one of the company's presidents saying she wanted 50 percent of the characters in Disney productions to be LGBTQIA or racial minorities by the end of 2022?

Disney even ended gendered greetings at its parks, which had existed for decades, to be more "inclusive."

People aren't making this stuff up. This is the company's stated goal.

---

Holy ****, the self proclaimed happiest place on earth that prides itself on amazing guest service is dropping gendered greetings to be move "inclusive" (why is this word in quotes) so as to not accidentally offend vistors? Nefarious.

That also has nothing to do with what I said, which was specifically referring to what posters here have said.

In any case, I've spent enough time debating with no one who's going to change their mind on anything relevant today. Have a good one.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin, or even if I'm wrong not nearly worth the effort put towards it by western Christianity. You'd think issues like divorce, adultery, materialism, or other sins discussed exponentially more in the Bible (and by Jesus in particular) that affect Christians far more directly would be a better use of the time and effort.

---

I also don't see anyone advocating for the other sins you mentioned in your post.

---

I don't see anyone giving much of a **** about them as compared to the histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.

---

You seem really lost. Also really emotional for some reason.

Nobody on this thread, and 99% of people in general, don't care that gays are "allowed to freely exist". Good grief.

The discussion was about children and children's entertainment. Take your histrionic garbage elsewhere.

---

Really? Because a raft of laws attacking LGBTQ people are passing left and right in conservative states under the guise of "protecting children." Sure seems like you have a different definition of "freely exist" than those words would suggest.

---

lol this post got 7 stars from a poster who won't provide an example. Never change, entertainment board.

Quote:

---

Holy ****, the self proclaimed happiest place on earth that prides itself on amazing guest service is dropping gendered greetings to be move "inclusive" (why is this word in quotes) so as to not accidentally offend vistors? Nefarious.

---

lol or making 99% of the population participate in the mental illness of 1%. So noble. So righteous.

tomtomdrumdrum said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin, or even if I'm wrong not nearly worth the effort put towards it by western Christianity. You'd think issues like divorce, adultery, materialism, or other sins discussed exponentially more in the Bible (and by Jesus in particular) that affect Christians far more directly would be a better use of the time and effort.

---

I also don't see anyone advocating for the other sins you mentioned in your post.

---

I don't see anyone giving much of a **** about them as compared to the histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.

---

You seem really lost. Also really emotional for some reason.

Nobody on this thread, and 99% of people in general, don't care that gays are "allowed to freely exist". Good grief.

The discussion was about children and children's entertainment. Take your histrionic garbage elsewhere.

---

Say it wasn't two characters in a kids movie y'all were talking about, but a married couple with their own kids at a park. If it's a man and woman and they kiss, how do you react? What conversation do you have with your child? And if it's a gay couple how do you react? What conversation do you have with your child?

Hopefully your two sets of answers aren't different, else I'd call BS on your claim that you want to allow gay people to freely exist.

If your answers are the same, then I'd ask why you find a movie threatening but real life not?

---

Dude (ma'am?), I don't find any movie threatening. I simply said I understand parents who are against it. You can put words in my mouth and "call BS" on whatever you want. Your opinion has zero effect on me whatsoever.

tomtomdrumdrum said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't consider it to be sin, or even if I'm wrong not nearly worth the effort put towards it by western Christianity. You'd think issues like divorce, adultery, materialism, or other sins discussed exponentially more in the Bible (and by Jesus in particular) that affect Christians far more directly would be a better use of the time and effort.

---

I also don't see anyone advocating for the other sins you mentioned in your post.

---

I don't see anyone giving much of a **** about them as compared to the histrionics over LGBTQ people being allowed to freely exist.

---

You seem really lost. Also really emotional for some reason.

Nobody on this thread, and 99% of people in general, don't care that gays are "allowed to freely exist". Good grief.

The discussion was about children and children's entertainment. Take your histrionic garbage elsewhere.

---

Say it wasn't two characters in a kids movie y'all were talking about, but a married couple with their own kids at a park. If it's a man and woman and they kiss, how do you react? What conversation do you have with your child? And if it's a gay couple how do you react? What conversation do you have with your child?

Hopefully your two sets of answers aren't different, else I'd call BS on your claim that you want to allow gay people to freely exist.

If your answers are the same, then I'd ask why you find a movie threatening but real life not?

---

Why would a man and woman kissing merit a reaction from children or a conversation with them? They should see it at home every day since that's how they got here.

Obviously no child has two dads or two moms. We'd probably talk about adoption and the sad state of the world that their parents couldn't provide them with what they needed (or maybe they suffered a tragedy). Probably about how they couldn't see motherhood or fatherhood modeled either depending on the home they live in.

I feel like it's a low bar to say women and men are different at more levels than just how they look, but perhaps you feel differently?

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

maybe continuing to tell all of us "libs" that we're dragging down society, want to load up preschool tv with homosexual content (which no one has talked about except you brining it up multiple times), taking our toddlers to drag brunches, etc., isn't a fair assumption?

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I don't know about "libs." But you do realize Disney executives were caught on camera talking about their "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" and adding "queerness to children's programming," with one of the company's presidents saying she wanted 50 percent of the characters in Disney productions to be LGBTQIA or racial minorities by the end of 2022?

Disney even ended gendered greetings at its parks, which had existed for decades, to be more "inclusive."

People aren't making this stuff up. This is the company's stated goal.

---

Just for those who haven't seen it...

https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/2022/3/30/disney-execs-promote-not-so-secret-gay-agenda-leaked-internal-vid

---

This isn't the "gotcha" y'all think it is.

For the 400th time, for the cheap seats... these people, along with many, many others, including myself, don't see being gay as a "sin" or "bad" or worth freaking out over in any way, shape or form. And because we don't see it as a negative, we could not care less if it's depicted in the things our children watch, as long as it's not overly sexualized. Basically, if it's something a hetero couple can be seen doing in a Disney movie, we have absolutely no issue with a gay couple doing the same thing in a Disney movie.

And so far, to my knowledge, Disney hasn't crossed that line, nor does it appear they intend to.

From what I see and hear, Disney's only "agenda" is attempting to normalize something we agree *should* be normalized. As an act of empathy and inclusivity. Because we believe it's the kind thing to do.

This doesn't mean they're trying to turn your kids gay (which is preposterous).

This doesn't mean they're trying to get your kids to march in pride parades on floats with gay strippers.

They're simply doing what they can to try and create a more tolerable society.

Now, can Disney and others go overboard in this regard? Absolutely. Because of the staunch opposition that often goes equally overboard, it inevitably escalates into a pissing match, where advocation can quickly turn into an attempt at submission. And neither side is without fault in that regard.

Also, I have to clarify, once more, that this doesn't mean that I'm pro drag-shows-for kids, and I admit that that the trans kids issue is a delicate one, and that a contingent on the left is going overboard in that regard as well.

What I'm talking about is basic *depiction* here, when it comes to gay people in Disney movies.

fig96 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

maybe continuing to tell all of us "libs" that we're dragging down society, want to load up preschool tv with homosexual content (which no one has talked about except you brining it up multiple times), taking our toddlers to drag brunches, etc., isn't a fair assumption?

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I don't know about "libs." But you do realize Disney executives were caught on camera talking about their "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" and adding "queerness to children's programming," with one of the company's presidents saying she wanted 50 percent of the characters in Disney productions to be LGBTQIA or racial minorities by the end of 2022?

Disney even ended gendered greetings at its parks, which had existed for decades, to be more "inclusive."

People aren't making this stuff up. This is the company's stated goal.

---

Holy ****, the self proclaimed happiest place on earth that prides itself on amazing guest service is dropping gendered greetings to be move "inclusive" (why is this word in quotes) so as to not accidentally offend vistors? Nefarious.

That also has nothing to do with what I said, which was specifically referring to what posters here have said.

In any case, I've spent enough time debating with no one who's going to change their mind on anything relevant today. Have a good one.

---

TCTTS said:

---

fig96 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

maybe continuing to tell all of us "libs" that we're dragging down society, want to load up preschool tv with homosexual content (which no one has talked about except you brining it up multiple times), taking our toddlers to drag brunches, etc., isn't a fair assumption?

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I don't know about "libs." But you do realize Disney executives were caught on camera talking about their "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" and adding "queerness to children's programming," with one of the company's presidents saying she wanted 50 percent of the characters in Disney productions to be LGBTQIA or racial minorities by the end of 2022?

Disney even ended gendered greetings at its parks, which had existed for decades, to be more "inclusive."

People aren't making this stuff up. This is the company's stated goal.

---

Holy ****, the self proclaimed happiest place on earth that prides itself on amazing guest service is dropping gendered greetings to be move "inclusive" (why is this word in quotes) so as to not accidentally offend vistors? Nefarious.

That also has nothing to do with what I said, which was specifically referring to what posters here have said.

In any case, I've spent enough time debating with no one who's going to change their mind on anything relevant today. Have a good one.

---

---

Like beast of burden said, 99 girls won't be addressed as 'princess' now to accommodate the 1. That's not 'amazing guest service' it's last mile fog.