America's sexual deviation & decadence over the line

When you see the entire nations arguing about whether or not men can go into a woman's bathroom because of his sexual identity disorder you might think, "This can't get any worse". And then it does. In fact, to me, this seems to be really, really creepy. Can't we just leave the children alone? To me this is borderline child sexual abuse. This is the work of pedophiles.

I just read an article about Disney, Ellen DeGeneres and the insertion (excuse the poor choice of words) of gay and transgendered characters into children's cartoons. Really? Isn't it bad enough that the LBGT and teachers unions have successfully incorporated sexual education materials regarding all manors of sexual deviancy to satisfy the future needs of the gay community? Are we going to have Paula Poundstone do a voice over for a big fish who is sexually attracted to little fish, hint, hint?

When I was a child, cartoons were about a Tom cat fighting with Jerry the mouse, or a Coyote chasing a road runner or Bugs Bunny outwitting Elmer J. Fudd. Sometimes, Buggs would dress as a woman and give him a big fat kiss. I don't think we would have ever considered that Bugs Bunny was a cross-dressing homosexual. It was Bugs Bunny pulling one over on Elmer. We had a amorous skunk who was enamored with a cat that he mistook as another skunk. We didn't give much thought to the skunk having sex with the cat, just that he was in love with the cat. It wasn't about recruiting heterosexuals.

But now Disney is being pressured into creating gay characters and transgender characters for their children's cartoons. What's next, pedophile characters? Trans-species characters? Just as the ADA was forced through political pressure to accept homosexuality and take it off of their list of mental disorders, the rest of society is being pressure to accept more and more deviancy, bisexuality, cross-dressing, transgendering blah, blah, blah. When will we say enough is enough? Where do we draw the line? Seriously, even if you are very liberal on LBGT issues, where do you draw the line?

Can't we just leave the children alone and let them be children without brainwashing their young minds about their sexual identities? To me this is child sexual abuse and borderline pedophilia.

 

If StarShip Troopers wouldn't have a problem with it, why should the militia of the United States?

 

The militia? I'm talking about children and children's cartoons.

 

For thousands of years society has targeted gay people with every punishment from stoning to castration to firing them from their
jobs - often just at the merest hint of homosexual activity.

Now, you are freaking out about gay people asking to be dealt with as part of society rather than as a target for hostility.
Is that really such a horrible thing for them to do?

 

We are talking about children here. "Finding Nemo" is a great children's cartoon. Families can take their very young children to see these movies and they tend to be successful in keeping their attention. I've watched the movie myself a couple of times with my young grandchild.

Now you are going to force the public to force political correctness on 3 year olds in their cartoons?

Leave the children alone. This is why I say it is borderline pedophilia. There is really no need for a fish character who is a boy that thinks he's a girl, or gay couples in a cartoon or movies that are targeted towards children.

It's creepy and gross. Where do you draw the line?

 

It's amazing how all this paranoia, hype, and hatred don't exist when you're not afraid of gay people and thinking they're going to turn your children into gay people or sexual predators.

I mean, seriously, life has enough real stress as it is. Do we actually need manufactured stress to be thrown on the pile too? And especially when it's based on stupidity?

 

Filmmakers are in the business to make money, aside from anything else. Parents teach values. If you don't want to take your children to something that seems to have a gay character, then don't. You are free to make a choice, as are the maker of the film. Are you suggesting their freedoms are infringed due to your beliefs?

I assume you reference "Finding Dory"... but is it confirmed that there is a lesbian couple (I haven't seen the trailer, only an image)? Could they be sisters, friends, babysitters? Perhaps not, I don't particularly care; I don't think children can be turned gay and I don't think a lesbian couple is anymore sexualized than a heterosexual couple.

 

It's only creepy and gross to homophobes. Maybe if you had been exposed to homosexual couples at an earlier age you
wouldn't now suffer from your phobia.

Perhaps if the shooter in Orlando had been exposed to homosexual couples as more normal aspect of life when he was young, rather
than being indoctrinated as it being "gross", he might not have gone off as he did.

Where should we draw the line on homophobia? Would it be wise for us to notify the authorities of your obsession with gay people?

 

I think its a good thing Disney is thinking of putting a lesbian or a gay character in their films. What's funny is that, a lot of the classic Disney films have hidden, sexual innuendos to them, whether it was intended or not, seen in some of the most timeless of Disney films. It's actually a good move to put trans, lesbo, or gay figures in children's films. It's diversification, and shows children to respect those who have different sexual preferences. In a changing society, this is important. Let's say you put a lesbian in Powerpuff Girls, or you show two guys making out on Spongebob Squarepants, would you be offended? I can think of numerous instances where there's been hints of homosexuality between Spongebob and Patrick over the years that's pretty much gone unnoticed. Parents need to take a chill pill, realize the exposure is healthy, and promotes acceptance of the sexually different. So, both Ellen and Disney have a point. That three year old is watching two guys making out, nothing wrong with that.

To say cartoons should be like Looney Tunes, or like cartoons in the 70's or 80's is ridiculous. I grew up to a lot of Saturday morning cartoons that were fairly innocent (until you figure out the heavy presence of marijuana in Scooby Doo), and I wouldn't want to keep them that way, rather let them evolve. I say let Cartoon Network and Nick put homosexuals and transsexuals in their cartoons, there's no problem with it, even if its not fairly obvious. There was this episode in Pokemon that's since been taken off where they gave James breasts, the episode called, "Beauty On The Beach." It was initially a artists error, but I still found it funny. Giving a guy breasts in a kiddies cartoon. That's actually a sight to see.

After the shooting in Orlando, however, I think the bathroom issue is the least of our worries, when it comes to the gay community. I've said it time and time again to designate a third bathroom, that has both a stall and urinal. The issue of sexual deviance will always be in the news, whether its on Craigslist, Match.com, or in a bathroom, we just have to find common sense solutions to combat that sexual deviancy in the new age.

 

What's the problem? If you don't like the subject matter. don't see the movie.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the problem? If you don't like the subject matter. don't see the movie.

 

I assume you didn't read the OP.

The point is, why is it even necessary? We don't have X-rated images in our children's cartoons, right? So what if the pervs in Hollywood decided that it was fine to put X-rated materials into children's cartoons? So less people would go to those movies right? So then why put sexual content that might make some parents say, hmmm, I don't think I will take my small child to see a transgender cartoon. Then in doing this, isn't Disney hurting itself by turning people away who would otherwise attend the film, you see? But of course, they are doing it to satisfy the LBGT people. Why? Just because the LBGT community is obsessed with sex, does that mean they have to throw it into everyone's face, even 3 year olds?

 

Hmm, well I feel like I can relate to the LGBT community.

When some women find out I went to ASU and hear my "number" I have actually been called a sexual deviant a few times.

So who is a worse threat to your girls, guys like me or trans in bathrooms

YOU DECIDE! (que evil drums)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There is no sexual content in the films. The apparent use of a lesbian couple is no more sexualized than a straight couple, except in your own filthy mind. I can see no sexual content that you speak of.

 

So there is something wrong with me because I don't think children should be bombarded with sexual images and homosexual propaganda? I'm offended because to me it is borderline pedophilia and child sexual abuse.

And then you have the nerve to compare me to the Orlando muslim terrorist murderer? Get real. I'm not suggesting we shoot homosexuals on the streets like dogs. I'm say stop sexually harassing the children. Give parents the opportunity to take their children to see these cartoons without them having to decide that they are too sexually explicit to go to.

I do object to the insinuation that homosexuality or homosexual couples are the norm. By definition, they are not the norm or normal. The are the exception. There is plenty of social, political and religious reasons to be opposed to gays raising children, not the least of which is the denial of the child's natural parents and access to their mother or father to satisfy the selfish compunctions of gays.

 

I think something important you're missing is you're not going to protect your kids from everything. The earlier they are exposed to homosexuality, or transgender, the better they will be to deal with these issues in the real world. Same for profanity. The earlier they are exposed to profanity in both music and television makes them better suited to adapt to the real world, where they will come in contact with it on a daily basis.

 

Okay, so I see that you have no problem with it, but there are people who do have a problem with it. You cavalier attitude is that they must be forced to accept it. Well, what if Christians decided that Jesus should be in all the cartoons at Disney? Maybe you should just accept that?

 

Well, with that attitude, like I said earlier, what if Christians pressured Disney to put Jesus or Christian themes in all of their movies? Would you then be saying, hmm, too bad, I guess I won't go?

And I really have a problem with people that have not problem with mixing sexual content and children. What is wrong with people? Do you have no problem with child sexual abuse? Pedophilia?

 

Wrong. If there was no sexual content, there would be no controversy, and no objection on my part. I wouldn't have started this thread, and there would be no article to write which was cited in the OP. Poor attempt to dodge the subject at hand.

 

Supposedly, there were one or two biblical references in The Lion King. But among the hidden sexuality innuendos, I'm sure that biblical influence was hidden. Christianity has bled into Disney once or twice before.

 

Well since we can't protect them from everything then let's do away with child safety seats. Stupid logic.

 

Yeah, but what if Disney were pressured to have two Christian characters in all of their movies? What would liberals have to say about that? Can we just say, hey, 80% of the public is Christians, you have to accept that and if you don't like it, don't go to the movie?

 

The objection on your part might be valid, but not for the reason of sexual content.

Perhaps you can let me know your definition of "sexual content". One definition I found says:

Considering the film doesn't even have partial nudity, then there is no sexual content under this definition.
Give me your definition with citation and I might agree...

 

It has content of a sexual nature that is inappropriate for children. That is my definition and I need not give you a citation other that that is my opinion and the opinion of millions of people across the country. Where do you draw the line? Why don't we explain sex slavery, or prostitution perhaps bondage and discipline? Do you see my point? Where do we draw the line? Why is it necessary to teach small children about sexual identity dis-morphia?

Again, if Christians were to pressure Disney to put characters that were Christians in every children's film, the liberals heads would explode.

 

I'm sure the extremist leftists would lose their mind - just like the extremist right wing is doing over this non issue. The rest of us will shrug and carry on with our lives.

If you don't like the content - don't see the movie, if enough people don't see the movie the studio will rethink their position. Your problem is most people will still see a movie reguardless of gay characters so the characters are not going anywhere - so I guess stick with sock puppets with your kids?

 

Well let's take that down the slippery slope and say that a child is molested at their day care and I guess we can have the cavalier attitude that well we should just accept it because eventually they will be expose to sex and to the real world where their are predators. If you don't like it, don't take your children to day care centers because sometimes they might employ someone who is a pedophile. Just shrug and carry on with your life because who cares?

Now, of course this is extreme, and while you may not find anything wrong with exposing children to pedophiles if you are a pedophile, and people who are accepting of the liberal decay and decadence of social sexual morality in our society see nothing wrong with exposing children to transgender fish in children's cartoons, there are some people in the society who find it just a little offensive.

Perhaps if we could get the homophobic islamic Americans to say that it is offensive then perhaps we can bow to their religious objections because we wouldn't want to offend the muslims because we've seen what happens to people who offend them.