Sunset Rose

That's great. SU isn't FiM, though. It's a different core message, different core audience and SU has a divisiveness at a level FiM does not. Many people who enjoy cartoons don't enjoy many of the themes of the show but with FiM it's a matter of age (and I suppose gender) barriers. I happen to be one of them, but that's as irrelevant as comparing Steven Universe to My Little Pony. To me, even if the culture is American, I don't think Steven Universe really hit it's mark with its target demographic in the first place. You can tote the virtues of progressiveness and love the show aimed at all day, but I don't believe the conceptual complexity is something children can fully capable of immediately appreciating or even understanding. Friendship is much simpler, much more important for children in my opinion. Regardless of region or culture. Children are children. youmustbenewhere.jpg That seems wholly irrelevant to me, but there are more than a fair share of conservatives in the fandom as well- some that support LGBT people as well, myself included. That is the way you take a definition, after all. Mmmmmn, no. That is not what sexuality is about. I would give you the definition but evidently you have your own as the literal definition of it apparently doesn't apply if it doesn't suit your argument. I don't think FiM fails at doing that, which has been one of my points this whole time. Once again, my argument is that it doesn't have to be a goal to teach kids- regardless of possible orientation- about sexual/physical attraction which is what the basis of a person's orientation is rooted in. The nebulous and splintered definition of the word 'love' has been bastardized with its separate meanings being interchanged to suit the user's argument enough through this conversation so I will condense it for you; Orientation is the direction of a person's sexuality. It defines what kind of person you are capable of being romantically involved with. Young children are, of course, capable of love but not in a romantic sense. In the sense that they have been taught to rely on family members and reinforce that bond by saying "I love you -insert family member here-". I don't care what shows have successfully (or unsuccessfully) tried to do to entangle a romantic message of any kind in their show directed at children, it is immoral. They are children. That sort of thing can start with teens at the earliest, which this show was not meant to target regardless of who ended up watching it or where in the world they are or what hangups they have on any topic we've talked about. FiM has done a great job so far of keeping the show targeted properly.

I guess I don't see what point it serves. It could change the gender of a character in the show to suit the acceptable relationship status of whatever country it's aired in, I suppose? Why would they see it as anything more but more work than is necessary and why would they want to ruin the commonality that fans across different countries would have? In the nebulous sense that love is an overreaching synonym of friendship, but I imagine if it were acceptable in the show's plot we'd have terms such as 'The Elements of Love' and 'Love is Magic' and Twilight and Cadence would have the same title, but they don't. Not that it's a bad thing, but I don't see the point. Unless you're suggesting One stretch of love being synonymous with friendship connecting to the assumption that children should be able to understand sexuality makes for... well, one heck of a stretch. Currently you could appease a subset of people, but it still alienates many others whereas the show as it is now- how it handles things like this now- alienates nobody. Less clever, more risky.

But they didn't, they just said that Cadence and Shining Armor were expecting a child and then Flurry Heart came along offscreen without the explicit mention of hows of it all. That could raise questions in a child's mind for their parents to answer later, but Hasbro would say (truthfully, I believe) that it wouldn't be FiM's duty to teach kids about the birds and the bees. If Shining Armor had married Big Mac and they adopted a child offscreen and did so in the same way I would be just as fine with it. (Though I'm sure many others wouldn't. I just think it would not break any moral rules or anything.) I think my point is that I agree with how the show has handled it so far. Yes, people would probably have a lot to say if Twilight married Celestia, but in the absence of the show's rating in this scenario mind you, for that specific reason, I don't think Hasbro would want to do that with higher profile characters. While I think it would be a wonderful message to send that they support and acknowledge LGBT people as a normal thing, it would probably incite more than they bargain for from viewers in this day and age. We're getting there, but we're not quite there yet. And yes, that's me off-hand admitting that I also don't think Shining Armor and Cadence really have much of an impact on the show. Or at the very least that I didn't think The Crystal Empire was very interesting. If you were Hasbro, would you want that to make a martyr of your series by proving a point about non-straight relationships' acceptance in America or just continue to stay the successful course? I believe the best way of handling it- for Hasbro anyway, since it's such a sensitive topic for so many people one way or another- is to distance themselves from any potential for others to say they're culturally insensitive to anyone. i.e. To not put themselves in any position to fall into hot water with fans or the media, which means having a light touch with orientation representation.