Ellis Wyatt said:

---

It's absolutely grooming. Has no place whatsoever in childrens programming.

---

He's ok with teaching gayness to little boys, thus he's defensive.

redcrayon said:

---

Pride month overload is not doing the the gay community any favors. Even people who were live and let live are changing their minds after seeing all of the over-the-top sexual displays. You've lost the narrative.

---

I think this is key.

Pride Month and especially Pride Parades have become overt sexual events. Many on this board bashing that would be equally against straight events with guy/girls in underwear dry humping in public. We would not allow our kids near. I don't let my young kids watch anything with sexual references or sexual activity of ANY kind.

This overt sexually makes parents uneasy and thus is gets applied to "normal" gay/lesbian couples in general.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Artorias said:

---

I will be surprised if this movie is not a bust

---

Top Gun has been out for 3 weeks and everyone has seen it. Jurassic World 3 kind of sucked and a lot of people have seen it. Nothing else big comes out until Thor in July. It is summer. It is the only animated movie on the block with a blockbuster character.

It does $200M domestically easy. Likely $500M+ worldwide.

---

You also predicted gas prices wouldn't go up Boyd ! How's the cm family doing ?

---

First, this earns a flag. Second, check back after opening weekend.

---

Surprise surprise! Mr. CM who totally isn't a CM, is so triggered by being called a CM that he flags people for telling the truth.

The truth is that you call yourself a conservative, and run interference for liberal causes constantly, and consistently. When people point out your dishonesty, you cry personal attack.

Hello?

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Artorias said:

---

I will be surprised if this movie is not a bust

---

Top Gun has been out for 3 weeks and everyone has seen it. Jurassic World 3 kind of sucked and a lot of people have seen it. Nothing else big comes out until Thor in July. It is summer. It is the only animated movie on the block with a blockbuster character.

It does $200M domestically easy. Likely $500M+ worldwide.

---

You also predicted gas prices wouldn't go up Boyd ! How's the cm family doing ?

---

First, this earns a flag. Second, check back after opening weekend.

---

How does this earn a flag?

I'll admit, in 20 years on this site I've never flagged a post nor hit the ignore button on a single user so my tolerance is high....but, really, this post was flag-worthy?

People have a right to be upset over this normalizing of what many in today's society view as abhorrent behavior - even though there are also many people who view it as perfectly acceptable behavior.

Homosexuals claim a right to privacy whilst simultaneously claiming some right to see their behavior represented in all facets of life - or else!

Should Disney depict on screen plural marriages, threesomes, Buzz Lightyear banging Woody's wife and Mrs Potatohead? Those are legal behaviors though some may find it morally offensive.

It is perfectly acceptable and well within rights of the parents to object to what Disney is doing. Disney is at the very least indoctrinating and normalizing and does appear to be grooming more to this sort of behavior.

fka ftc said:

---

People have a right to be upset over this normalizing of what many in today's society view as abhorrent behavior - even though there are also many people who view it as perfectly acceptable behavior.

Homosexuals claim a right to privacy whilst simultaneously claiming some right to see their behavior represented in all facets of life - or else!

Should Disney depict on screen plural marriages, threesomes, Buzz Lightyear banging Woody's wife and Mrs Potatohead? Those are legal behaviors though some may find it morally offensive.

It is perfectly acceptable and well within rights of the parents to object to what Disney is doing. Disney is at the very least indoctrinating and normalizing and does appear to be grooming more to this sort of behavior.

---

Pretty sure the first one is still illegal and the last two are overtly sexual. Nobody suggested depicting sex in a children's movie was acceptable. The only thing about what is depicted in this movie that is different from what has been acceptable in plenty of other children's movies is that the couple is two females. That's it.

Squadron7 said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Artorias said:

---

I will be surprised if this movie is not a bust

---

Top Gun has been out for 3 weeks and everyone has seen it. Jurassic World 3 kind of sucked and a lot of people have seen it. Nothing else big comes out until Thor in July. It is summer. It is the only animated movie on the block with a blockbuster character.

It does $200M domestically easy. Likely $500M+ worldwide.

---

You also predicted gas prices wouldn't go up Boyd ! How's the cm family doing ?

---

First, this earns a flag. Second, check back after opening weekend.

---

How does this earn a flag?

I'll admit, in 20 years on this site I've never flagged a post nor hit the ignore button on a single user so my tolerance is high....but, really, this post was flag-worthy?

---

You shouldn't feel too special. Boyd is known for it.

Quincey P. Morris said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

People have a right to be upset over this normalizing of what many in today's society view as abhorrent behavior - even though there are also many people who view it as perfectly acceptable behavior.

Homosexuals claim a right to privacy whilst simultaneously claiming some right to see their behavior represented in all facets of life - or else!

Should Disney depict on screen plural marriages, threesomes, Buzz Lightyear banging Woody's wife and Mrs Potatohead? Those are legal behaviors though some may find it morally offensive.

It is perfectly acceptable and well within rights of the parents to object to what Disney is doing. Disney is at the very least indoctrinating and normalizing and does appear to be grooming more to this sort of behavior.

---

Pretty sure the first one is still illegal and the last two are overtly sexual. Nobody suggested depicting sex in a children's movie was acceptable. The only thing about what is depicted in this movie that is different from what has been acceptable in plenty of other children's movies is that the couple is two females. That's it.

---

Why is the first illegal? Makes no sense for gay marriages to be legal and marriages to more than one person to be illegal.

I could have worded it better, so let me help you on what I am saying. If Buzz kisses both Mrs Potatohead and Woody's woman in the same scene or in the same movie, it raises some question. Particularly if Buzz is also married at the moment.

How funny a world when one points to plural marriage being illegal in defending homosexuals' depiction on the big screen. Socialist commie mental gymnastics at its finest.

Nobody has to cater to your ignorance or homophobia. Gay people have the right to marry and there are countless examples of happy married gay couples with children that are happy, loved, and well raised.

Just because you live in an insecure bubble that can't tolerate other peoples lives are different than yours, doesn't mean they're evil. Youre just homophobic and this rhetoric is a thinly veiled attempt at concern. Its really just hate.

I mean, you literally just compared a lesbian couple to a wreck less orgy. That shows some real disdain.

I wasn't addressing what you think makes sense. To my knowledge polygamy is illegal.

To the second part of your response, I don't think you'd find many people that would find depicting a love triangle in a children's movie to be appropriate. You're talking about apples and oranges here.

As to my "commie mental gymnastics", I'll just say you're way off base there.

kids do better in hetro family than gay. hth.

We're going back to "tolerance"?

You are getting old. That was so 15 years ago.

What did you expect from here? Enjoy the right to marriage while it lasts.

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

It's absolutely grooming. Has no place whatsoever in childrens programming.

---

He's ok with teaching gayness to little boys, thus he's defensive.

---

It's almost like deep down these people, as well as the pro baby killing crowd, know in their heart of hearts that what they support (grooming children/killing children) is evil and depraved...so as some sort of defense mechanism for their conscience, they double down and point fingers every way but in their own direction in an attempt to convince themselves, and others, that they are the righteous ones with altruistic and noble motives and intentions. It's hard to put into words and it barely makes sense, but that is my opinion after observing these types. Children do this all the time.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Nobody has to cater to your ignorance or homophobia. Gay people have the right to marry and there are countless examples of happy married gay couples with children that are happy, loved, and well raised.

Just because you live in an insecure bubble that can't tolerate other peoples lives are different than yours, doesn't mean they're evil. Youre just homophobic and this rhetoric is a thinly veiled attempt at concern. Its really just hate.

I mean, you literally just compared a lesbian couple to a wreck less orgy. That shows some real disdain.

---

This may be the most ad hominem of ad hominem attacks.

I didn't bash gay people and I am certainly not ignorant nor homophobic. I can also assure you I am not insecure and I do not live in a bubble and I am quite tolerant.

From day one of starting my small business 12+ years ago and when we only had 10 or so employees I made sure our healthcare coverages provided for same sex couples and their dependents. I have supported two of my employees who are in a same sex, committed relationship to the point of helping them purchase a home, sending them on vacations together and I am scheduled to perform their nuptials. I have also been a reference for them when they chose to become foster parents. So Baller, your gay defense blinds you in so many ways and in line with how you and others act towards those you think may not agree with your lifestyle choices.

I am defending those who do not agree with homosexual behavior and their RIGHT to believe that way. Why do you think they do not have such rights?

Quincey P. Morris said:

---

I wasn't addressing what you think makes sense. To my knowledge polygamy is illegal.

To the second part of your response, I don't think you'd find many people that would find depicting a love triangle in a children's movie to be appropriate. You're talking about apples and oranges here.

As to my "commie mental gymnastics", I'll just say you're way off base there.

---

So what is the magic number on what is and is not appropriate? Its not apples and oranges, its saying some apples are okay and other apples are not based on what you "think" many people would find appropriate.

Commie mental gymnastics is not referring to you personally, but to the glaring holes in a thought process that says gay marriage is a right, but plural marriage is a no-no and gay, transgender, non-binary, etc+ is a right but threesomes are taboo.

Being a conservative white Christian man who believes homosexuality is immoral is a right too. It may not be a position I share but there is a right to have to have those moral standards.

etxag02 said:

---

What did you expect from here? Enjoy the right to marriage while it lasts.

---

So many fundamentalists Mormons agree with this sentiment.

fka ftc said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Nobody has to cater to your ignorance or homophobia. Gay people have the right to marry and there are countless examples of happy married gay couples with children that are happy, loved, and well raised.

Just because you live in an insecure bubble that can't tolerate other peoples lives are different than yours, doesn't mean they're evil. Youre just homophobic and this rhetoric is a thinly veiled attempt at concern. Its really just hate.

I mean, you literally just compared a lesbian couple to a wreck less orgy. That shows some real disdain.

---

This may be the most ad hominem of ad hominem attacks.

I didn't bash gay people and I am certainly not ignorant nor homophobic. I can also assure you I am not insecure and I do not live in a bubble and I am quite tolerant.

From day one of starting my small business 12+ years ago and when we only had 10 or so employees I made sure our healthcare coverages provided for same sex couples and their dependents. I have supported two of my employees who are in a same sex, committed relationship to the point of helping them purchase a home, sending them on vacations together and I am scheduled to perform their nuptials. I have also been a reference for them when they chose to become foster parents. So Baller, your gay defense blinds you in so many ways and in line with how you and others act towards those you think may not agree with your lifestyle choices.

I am defending those who do not agree with homosexual behavior and their RIGHT to believe that way. Why do you think they do not have such rights?

---

Congrats. You employed gay people. If you had these views and expressed them in the workplace, im sure your fay employees were unsettled to say the least.

And its kind of double talk. You just compared a happy lesbian couple and now youre saying youre tolerant. Which one is it?

Your views are homophobic, and you have the right to say them. Honestly I applaud you for at least not going so far that they should be put to death, as many on this board have. But I also have the right to call it like I see it.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Hello?

---

Is it me you're looking for?

They know exactly how I feel about things and they are not unsettled at all.

You see, I can support that they have a right to their choices in this matter whilst simultaneously not agreeing with it. Its not homophobic, in fact it is the very definition of tolerance.

You do NOT have the right to call me homophobic and nothing I said supports that.

I guess I don't understand how you can help gay people fet married while simultaneously being grossed out by a married lesbian couple in a cartoon.

Hypocritical to say the least. Help me understand.

You're having a different conversation. This thread is about this movie. None of these examples you're coming up with are relevant in the least.

I've also never said you can't think whatever you please. I may not agree, but that's about it. My issue here is acting like this thing is some massive issue and insisting that it's horrific and damaging. Or from at least one individual, just a preclude to normalizing pedophilia. I think the uproar over showing something that is predominantly the same as other scenes depicted in movies is absurd.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

I guess I don't understand how you can help gay people fet married while simultaneously being grossed out by a married lesbian couple in a cartoon.

Hypocritical to say the least. Help me understand.

---

Because I am not grossed out by it, but I agree with others it does not have a place in movies that I prefer my child to watch. I do not care for it personally, but threesomes can gross me out a bit too. Doesn't mean I would discriminate against them or believe they are less than human.

I just do not prefer my child to watch two cartoon ladies making out in a kids movie about toy space travelers.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Nobody has to cater to your ignorance or homophobia. Gay people have the right to marry and there are countless examples of happy married gay couples with children that are happy, loved, and well raised.

Just because you live in an insecure bubble that can't tolerate other peoples lives are different than yours, doesn't mean they're evil. Youre just homophobic and this rhetoric is a thinly veiled attempt at concern. Its really just hate.

I mean, you literally just compared a lesbian couple to a wreck less orgy. That shows some real disdain.

---

This may be the most ad hominem of ad hominem attacks.

I didn't bash gay people and I am certainly not ignorant nor homophobic. I can also assure you I am not insecure and I do not live in a bubble and I am quite tolerant.

From day one of starting my small business 12+ years ago and when we only had 10 or so employees I made sure our healthcare coverages provided for same sex couples and their dependents. I have supported two of my employees who are in a same sex, committed relationship to the point of helping them purchase a home, sending them on vacations together and I am scheduled to perform their nuptials. I have also been a reference for them when they chose to become foster parents. So Baller, your gay defense blinds you in so many ways and in line with how you and others act towards those you think may not agree with your lifestyle choices.

I am defending those who do not agree with homosexual behavior and their RIGHT to believe that way. Why do you think they do not have such rights?

---

Congrats. You employed gay people. If you had these views and expressed them in the workplace, im sure your fay employees were unsettled to say the least.

And its kind of double talk. You just compared a happy lesbian couple and now youre saying youre tolerant. Which one is it?

Your views are homophobic, and you have the right to say them. Honestly I applaud you for at least not going so far that they should be put to death, as many on this board have. But I also have the right to call it like I see it.

---

How many on this board have said that?

First, if your post to BallerStaff is legit, then I don't think much more can be asked there. People don't have to agree with other people's choices to be compassionate. I've got plenty of friends whose choices I've disagreed with across a wide variety of issues. They're still my friends.


To the scene in question though, there's no definition by which what happens in this movie could be considered making out. Unless I missed something, the kiss in question is a quick hello peck on the lips and that's the extent of it. The couple in question is in a monogamous relationship that lasts until one of them dies.

fka ftc said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

I guess I don't understand how you can help gay people fet married while simultaneously being grossed out by a married lesbian couple in a cartoon.

Hypocritical to say the least. Help me understand.

---

Because I am not grossed out by it, but I agree with others it does not have a place in movies that I prefer my child to watch. I do not care for it personally, but threesomes can gross me out a bit too. Doesn't mean I would discriminate against them or believe they are less than human.

I just do not prefer my child to watch two cartoon ladies making out in a kids movie about toy space travelers.

---

Ok. I am appreciating your honesty and willingness to discuss.

Can you explain why you don't want your child seeing it? Did you ever subject your children to your gay married employees?

Many. Many. Many.

They've been getting deleted with no bans. I know the usernames. They will do it again. Ill screenshot them for reference.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Many. Many. Many.

They've been getting deleted with no bans. I know the usernames. They will do it again. Ill screenshot them for reference.

---

As usual you make crap up to fit your drama narrative.

Couple of reasons for my child not to see it. First, as mentioned, I do not agree with the lifestyle choice. That's my decision and shared by his mom. Second, I just think it is massively out of place in a Buzz Lightyear story. Pretty sure we never saw Andy's parents kissing in Toy Story. And more than anything because Disney admitted to pushing all this in their woke agenda. Not to represent these scenarios, but to actively push and normalize them.

Yes, my son knows about these two employees and I would explicitly trust them with these two ladies. That has a lot more to do with knowing them than it does their choice in mate.

I think you would find there are many reasonable people here on f16, much more than those few who go full tyrannical on both ends of these discussions. I've read a lot of your posts and you make much better discussions when you decide to not be so volatile in your comments.

Reminds me of a certain bitcoin supporter and the errors they made in the administration of their comments to others.

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

Thaddeus Beauregard said:

---

The topic of one's sexuality, whatever it is, has no place in the workplace whatsoever unless one's job directly pertains to sexuality

---

Talking about sex is inappropriate in most workplace situations (although it's hardly uncommon). But don't you see this whole phenomenon of reducing everything gay people do to "sexuality?" When straight people have a picture of their spouse on their desk or give their significant other a kiss when they get dropped off at work or talk about how their family is expecting a child or whatever, that's nothing. When gay people do it it's somehow bringing sex into the workplace (or the movies, or schools, or whatever).

---

Nope, I disagree with both the validity of your observed "phenomenon" and your analogy that follows. This whole discussion isn't about individuals' sexual orientation and benign references to it that aren't intended to throw it into people's faces in inappropriate settings. Anything that isn't allowed with regards to homosexual behavior at the workplace likewise isn't allowed with heterosexual behavior. Having photos of one's spouse, kissing a spouse in the parking lot, talking about family planning doesn't fall into that category.

This discussion is about the systematic cultural shift taking place right now where everyone is bombarded by LGBTQ+ propaganda, even in inappropriate settings geared towards children, and if you don't cheer for it and don't agree with a month being devoted to celebrating it, you're labeled a "bigot." The same sex kiss in the movie taken by itself may be pretty benign, but when viewed in the context of Disney execs openly admitting they planned to incorporate more LGBTQ content, most people object to this agenda incrementally being promoted to children.

I still feel like youre talking out of both sides of your both. You can't officiate gay weddings and be against innocuous gay couples in a cartoon. Makes no sense.

Your statement that many posters on this board have called for gays to be put to death needs some citation. I follow this board and cannot recall any instances where anyone has called for this. That being said, I might have missed it if so.

Please, for your credibility, cite these, or at least say you got caught up in the heat of the argument and amend your accusation. This board gets nasty, but does not need this accusation if not 100% true.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Many. Many. Many.

They've been getting deleted with no bans. I know the usernames. They will do it again. Ill screenshot them for reference.

---

Who? Name them.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quincey P. Morris said:

---

Just left the movie. To say this thread makes a mountain out of a mole hill would be an absolutely epic understatement.

---

You ain't kidding

My goodness

---

A big nothing burger that they could have left out (and avoided controversy) since it was ~30 seconds?

Huh, wonder why they didn't take it out but instead left this totally innocuous thing in…it's almost like Disney thinks it's a mountain…

---

The kiss itself was less than a second. Most young kids won't even notice.

And Disney isn't hiding the ball here, they freely said of their own volition the scene had been removed until Desantis passed the "don't say gay" bill. That's when they put it back in. They stated this openly.

Now is that spiteful? Sure. Does the scene add much to the movie? It sounds like not really (though I've only seen the short clip, not the whole movie, just basing that on reviews). Is in the moment we'll look back on and say "that's where civilization came tumbling down" as this thread alludes? It is not.

---

Oh so Disney put it in to piss people off. And now they're pissed off. So it's more of a Kafka trap on your part?

Edit: to add, yes a young kiss they 'won't notice' is the point. It's supposed to become background noise so when they're taught about it they'll buy into it.

---

So worst case scenario the next generation becomes indifferent to two women kissing?

And this is the prospect I'm supposed to be fearful of?

---

If sexual preference is a social construct then yeah you should be worried.

And studies have been done on this especially with adolescents.

Most teenagers that claim they are gay happened in about 3% of the population prior to the most recent generation. This statistic went up from less tham 1% shortly after homosexuality became more accepted and remained hovering at 3% for roughly 2 decades.

Now we have darn near 20% of adolescents claiming to be gay.

They have done studies and found that this actually happens in clusters of social groups. One kid comes out and others tend to follow.

Its almost as if you can groom kids to believe they are gay because if being gay is percieved as cool they will want to be identified in this group.

There are more in depth facts regarding this but if you're trying to convince me that suddenly the rate of homosexuality jumped to 1/5th of the popukation within a generation just because its more widely accepted and the gays don't fear persecution anymore amd not for other reasons such as media influence, social media, etc then you are crazy.