one MEEN Ag said:

---

The joke I always heard was that Disney movies and porn have caused more warped perceptions of relationships than any other cultural forces.

'Where's my Prince Charming?' 'Where's my insatiable *****'

Disney ain't a friend of anybody here folks.

---

We studied Disney movies in my Senior Seminar on Marriage Plots

Tanya 93 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

The joke I always heard was that Disney movies and porn have caused more warped perceptions of relationships than any other cultural forces.

'Where's my Prince Charming?' 'Where's my insatiable *****'

Disney ain't a friend of anybody here folks.

---

We studied Disney movies in my Senior Seminar on Marriage Plots

---

Is marriage plots like tv tropes of marriage? Like going through the generations of tv shows to show how we went from Andy Griffith to Phil Dumphy.

TXAGFAN said:

---

BlueAg2003 said:

---

Exactly. I just hadn't scrolled down far enough. That's not even all of them either. Honestly every Disney movie I saw as a kid was essentially a romance in cartoon form. Kinda weird if you think about it.

---

FWIW, that sexuality is still allowed in PreK-3 in Florida schools. So it's really not to prevent groomers as the fine Gov DeSantis said.

---

It's also not keeping people from saying the word "gay" either like the resident liberals all over the county have said.

Personally, whether it's due to being "cancelled" or whatever the hell happens, this guy needs to be voted off by the board. Dude sucks.

Screw Bob Paycheck.

They are coming after your kids.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

The joke I always heard was that Disney movies and porn have caused more warped perceptions of relationships than any other cultural forces.

'Where's my Prince Charming?' 'Where's my insatiable *****'

Disney ain't a friend of anybody here folks.

---

We studied Disney movies in my Senior Seminar on Marriage Plots

---

Is marriage plots like tv tropes of marriage? Like going through the generations of tv shows to show how we went from Andy Griffith to Phil Dumphy.

---

This was in 1994.

It was a study from Shakespeare to When Harry met Sally. And how men and women are portrayed across various genres of tales of marriage.

We also watched Gaslight and Rear Window and The Simpsons

Again, we're all entitled to opinions, but this must be just a really exhausting way to live. You make it sound so utilitarian, so sterile.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

BlueAg2003 said:

---

Yeah I'm not getting the logic either. I know I'm a woman, and enjoy that fact about myself. Not a man. The woman I'm with is a woman confident in her womanhood, which I enjoy about her too. Very different and not sexually or romantically interchangeable with a man because I want nothing to do with being with a man. Pretty starkly different.

---

I'm not saying that you don't understand the physical differences between men and women, and it has nothing to do with your personal preferences. I'm simply pointing out that the ideology that undergirds same-sex couples in the first place is one that denies meaningful sexual difference. If there is no difference between a couple and a same-sex couple, that means that men and women are effectively the same when it comes to their sexual roles. If X + X = Z, Y + Y = Z, and X + Y = Z, then X = Y. Now extrapolate that to human relationships. It's a central tenant to any kind of philosophy that supports gay marriage because any recognition that sexual difference matters completely destroys the concept of same-sex couples.

I'm answering the question as to why it is bad to show this to children. It is bad because it promotes an ideology about sexual difference that is neither true nor productive. We shouldn't teach our children things that aren't true.

Accepting this ideology as reasonable just becomes more and more incoherent when you proceed to its logical conclusions. It's how the LGBT agenda has dovetailed into so many radical areas.

---

LGBT people exist whether you think they should or not and representation matters. Am I a proponent of sexualizing kids? Of course not, but kisses exist in Disney movies and if we get one who cares. Your sexualize argument falls apart because there are countless M/F kisses in childrens movies.

---

No, representation doesn't matter or there'd be 30+ straight kisses before you "get one" in a movie. However, to put that into a movie requires a lot of time so the ones that are in the movie count much more. Hence why it's such a flashpoint; it doesn't represent the vast majority of people and these money making movies are written to appeal to the vast majority.

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

BlueAg2003 said:

---

Yeah I'm not getting the logic either. I know I'm a woman, and enjoy that fact about myself. Not a man. The woman I'm with is a woman confident in her womanhood, which I enjoy about her too. Very different and not sexually or romantically interchangeable with a man because I want nothing to do with being with a man. Pretty starkly different.

---

I'm not saying that you don't understand the physical differences between men and women, and it has nothing to do with your personal preferences. I'm simply pointing out that the ideology that undergirds same-sex couples in the first place is one that denies meaningful sexual difference. If there is no difference between a couple and a same-sex couple, that means that men and women are effectively the same when it comes to their sexual roles. If X + X = Z, Y + Y = Z, and X + Y = Z, then X = Y. Now extrapolate that to human relationships. It's a central tenant to any kind of philosophy that supports gay marriage because any recognition that sexual difference matters completely destroys the concept of same-sex couples.

I'm answering the question as to why it is bad to show this to children. It is bad because it promotes an ideology about sexual difference that is neither true nor productive. We shouldn't teach our children things that aren't true.

Accepting this ideology as reasonable just becomes more and more incoherent when you proceed to its logical conclusions. It's how the LGBT agenda has dovetailed into so many radical areas.

---

LGBT people exist whether you think they should or not and representation matters. Am I a proponent of sexualizing kids? Of course not, but kisses exist in Disney movies and if we get one who cares. Your sexualize argument falls apart because there are countless M/F kisses in childrens movies.

---

Most parents with a brain care when the kiss is a romantic kiss involving the same sex. That is representative of a choice lifestyle that is perverted. I definitely don't want that for my kids regardless of how little it may play in the movie. This is just the beginning. If you don't believe that, you live on some other planet.

---

Most? If most parents weren't letting their kids watch this movie this wouldn't be happening. You're in the minority.

AGC said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

BlueAg2003 said:

---

Yeah I'm not getting the logic either. I know I'm a woman, and enjoy that fact about myself. Not a man. The woman I'm with is a woman confident in her womanhood, which I enjoy about her too. Very different and not sexually or romantically interchangeable with a man because I want nothing to do with being with a man. Pretty starkly different.

---

I'm not saying that you don't understand the physical differences between men and women, and it has nothing to do with your personal preferences. I'm simply pointing out that the ideology that undergirds same-sex couples in the first place is one that denies meaningful sexual difference. If there is no difference between a couple and a same-sex couple, that means that men and women are effectively the same when it comes to their sexual roles. If X + X = Z, Y + Y = Z, and X + Y = Z, then X = Y. Now extrapolate that to human relationships. It's a central tenant to any kind of philosophy that supports gay marriage because any recognition that sexual difference matters completely destroys the concept of same-sex couples.

I'm answering the question as to why it is bad to show this to children. It is bad because it promotes an ideology about sexual difference that is neither true nor productive. We shouldn't teach our children things that aren't true.

Accepting this ideology as reasonable just becomes more and more incoherent when you proceed to its logical conclusions. It's how the LGBT agenda has dovetailed into so many radical areas.

---

LGBT people exist whether you think they should or not and representation matters. Am I a proponent of sexualizing kids? Of course not, but kisses exist in Disney movies and if we get one who cares. Your sexualize argument falls apart because there are countless M/F kisses in childrens movies.

---

No, representation doesn't matter or there'd be 30+ straight kisses before you "get one" in a movie. However, to put that into a movie requires a lot of time so the ones that are in the movie count much more. Hence why it's such a flashpoint; it doesn't represent the vast majority of people and these money making movies are written to appeal to the vast majority.

---

You know better than Disney? Lol, ok. You're in the minority on this issue, F16 isn't the world.

B-1 83 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Why is there any kissing in this movie to begin with? Why the hell does everything revolve around sex for these people?

---

there has been kissing in Disney movies before

---

Dont sexualize our kids.

---

You lost all credibility you ever had with me with this one post. WTF is wrong with you?

---

it's true?

The reason this is "news" is because Disney has been making movies since 1938 and many of those featured kisses. This is the FIRST one in 85 years that has a kiss between same sex characters. So I'd say .0001% (or less of movies) featuring that is actually gross underrepresentation. We all know the same number of gay people probably existed in the 30s, 40s, 50s as today (they just had to hide it).

Quite frankly, I don't watch cartoons to see kissing, hetero or gay, so this issue dumb. I don't need Disney making me more palatable.

TJaggie14 said:

---

So they will include that scene when they release it to China?

---

That is a negative ghost rider

TXAGFAN said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Why is there any kissing in this movie to begin with? Why the hell does everything revolve around sex for these people?

---

there has been kissing in Disney movies before

---

Dont sexualize our kids.

---

You lost all credibility you ever had with me with this one post. WTF is wrong with you?

---

it's true?

---

Yes, it's true. You lost all credibility.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Why is there any kissing in this movie to begin with? Why the hell does everything revolve around sex for these people?

---

there has been kissing in Disney movies before

---

Not by queers.

---

Id rather you just call me the f word.

---

Fjords?

BlueAg2003 said:

---

The reason this is "news" is because Disney has been making movies since 1938 and many of those featured kisses. This is the FIRST one in 85 years that has a kiss between same sex characters. So I'd say .0001% (or less of movies) featuring that is actually gross underrepresentation. We all know the same number of gay people probably existed in the 30s, 40s, 50s as today (they just had to hide it).

Quite frankly, I don't watch cartoons to see kissing, hetero or gay, so this issue dumb. I don't need Disney making me more palatable.

---

That's why there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. A kid that watches this today didn't watch every movie since 1938 did they?

We actually don't know that what you're saying is true in regards to percentage in time; that's anachronistic thinking.

TXAGFAN said:

---

AGC said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

BlueAg2003 said:

---

Yeah I'm not getting the logic either. I know I'm a woman, and enjoy that fact about myself. Not a man. The woman I'm with is a woman confident in her womanhood, which I enjoy about her too. Very different and not sexually or romantically interchangeable with a man because I want nothing to do with being with a man. Pretty starkly different.

---

I'm not saying that you don't understand the physical differences between men and women, and it has nothing to do with your personal preferences. I'm simply pointing out that the ideology that undergirds same-sex couples in the first place is one that denies meaningful sexual difference. If there is no difference between a couple and a same-sex couple, that means that men and women are effectively the same when it comes to their sexual roles. If X + X = Z, Y + Y = Z, and X + Y = Z, then X = Y. Now extrapolate that to human relationships. It's a central tenant to any kind of philosophy that supports gay marriage because any recognition that sexual difference matters completely destroys the concept of same-sex couples.

I'm answering the question as to why it is bad to show this to children. It is bad because it promotes an ideology about sexual difference that is neither true nor productive. We shouldn't teach our children things that aren't true.

Accepting this ideology as reasonable just becomes more and more incoherent when you proceed to its logical conclusions. It's how the LGBT agenda has dovetailed into so many radical areas.

---

LGBT people exist whether you think they should or not and representation matters. Am I a proponent of sexualizing kids? Of course not, but kisses exist in Disney movies and if we get one who cares. Your sexualize argument falls apart because there are countless M/F kisses in childrens movies.

---

No, representation doesn't matter or there'd be 30+ straight kisses before you "get one" in a movie. However, to put that into a movie requires a lot of time so the ones that are in the movie count much more. Hence why it's such a flashpoint; it doesn't represent the vast majority of people and these money making movies are written to appeal to the vast majority.

---

You know better than Disney? Lol, ok. You're in the minority on this issue, F16 isn't the world.

---

Disney is a for profit company you moran. That's why it's not the main character and as pointed out above, won't be shown in China. Your representation was on the cutting room floor before it was added for protest if this is to be believed. They make money by appealing to the majority.

Based upon the article it was supposedly always obvious the character was in to hiking, just wasn't a steamy sex scene to get the fellas going. Now all the kids are gonna be gay when they grow up and there will be no more children for Disney to profit off of. Disney is digging their own grave.

Fire them if they take your airwaves hostage to their political messages . None of those people are not replaceable. Their talent is totally mediocre and is possessed by tons of others. In fact, they are lucky to have those jobs.

BlueAg2003 said:

---

Again, we're all entitled to opinions, but this must be just a really exhausting way to live. You make it sound so utilitarian, so sterile.

---

It's not exhausting because I don't have to run through intense philosophy to make every decision. I think about it the issue, learn what's right and wrong, and then live by the Basic tenets prescribed by said philosophy. I'm just laying out the details because this is the discussion at hand. It's not like I'm calculating utils for every decision.

We are all entitled to our opinions, but not all opinions are equal. I laid out a cogent ideology that backs up my point. You're free to disagree with it, but you should have some philosophical basis as to why you disagree. "Because it's how I feel" isn't really an argument.

I think we can all agree that we should teach our children a cogent philosophy. I don't know about you, but I don't take the nihilistic approach that nothing really matters so just do whatever feels good. I believe in objective truth and think we have a responsibility to seek it out.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Why is there any kissing in this movie to begin with? Why the hell does everything revolve around sex for these people?

---

there has been kissing in Disney movies before

---

Not by queers.

---

Id rather you just call me the f word.

---

Forum troll?

B-1 83 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Why is there any kissing in this movie to begin with? Why the hell does everything revolve around sex for these people?

---

there has been kissing in Disney movies before

---

Dont sexualize our kids.

---

You lost all credibility you ever had with me with this one post. WTF is wrong with you?

---

Snow White is 14 and the prince is 31

TJaggie14 said:

---

So they will include that scene when they release it to China?

---

Bingo.

Watching western society devolve is a ****show.

What this generation allows, the next will embrace

Saxsoon said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Why is there any kissing in this movie to begin with? Why the hell does everything revolve around sex for these people?

---

there has been kissing in Disney movies before

---

Dont sexualize our kids.

---

You lost all credibility you ever had with me with this one post. WTF is wrong with you?

---

Snow White is 14 and the prince is 31

---

Was Snow White storyline acceptable in 1812?

B-1 83 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Why is there any kissing in this movie to begin with? Why the hell does everything revolve around sex for these people?

---

there has been kissing in Disney movies before

---

Dont sexualize our kids.

---

You lost all credibility you ever had with me with this one post. WTF is wrong with you?

---

Wow. You are patient. He lost all with me on his first of 3000 childlike troll post. And missed the fact 85 years ago America was still mostly a rural agrarian culture when most states allowed marriage at 14=+.This didn't start shifting dramatically, thank God, until after WW2.

So do you think parents just don't show their kids the Disney classics anymore? Taking time out of the equation, on the Disney app, the current film offerings (which include movies from as old as Snow White) there is maybe one gay character. That's the gay dude from Frozen that I guarantee you not one kid picked up on. I blinked and missed it.

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Why is there any kissing in this movie to begin with? Why the hell does everything revolve around sex for these people?

---

From Snow White, a movie released in 1937



Probably the only example though…















Not to mention an overtly implied sex scene in the Lion King

Oh I live by a philosophy and it isn't the nihilistic "do whatever feels good". It is a very simple philosophy of "do no harm, treat others with respect, and leave this world better than you found it".

I can check all of those boxes being exactly who I am. We probably agree morally on every issue but that of being gay as right or wrong. And again, I'm ok with that. My relationship does no harm to anyone.