Should Gay Ponies be allowed?

[Will Guide 21,360]

Some People complained about Spongebob and Patrick bring gay and a bad influence on children just because of "Rock a Bi-Value" where a couple saw the pair with a baby scallop and thought "Sponge + Starfish equals Scallop?". Despite the fact the episode clearly shows the two ADOPTING the baby scallop until it was old enough to be on its own and the Late Stephen Hillenberg points out that Spongebob is asexual and reproduces by budding. Spongebob and Patrick never have and never will have sex in the show.

Here, it's possible to show gay ponies. As long as the right people with the right mindset and respectable attitude watches the show and not make such a controversial big deal out of it, I personally wouldn't complain. Treating gay people like abominations at worst is not the way of a respectable person.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Will Guide

[Dawnchaser 🌄 8,088]

Why not?

BBCs "Hey Duggee" has Mr Crab and Nigel and this is a show aimed at 2 to 5yrs

 

...although they did face criticism why Roly said he was a "fireman"

[Sunset Rose 254]

11 hours ago, Bas said:

1) I can get it from a business standpoint. There are also less liberal countries out there which they want to export the show to, but these episodes could be changed.

She's a man in Japan.

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?

 

11 hours ago, Bas said:

2) Steven Universe/Cartoon Network was brave enough to do so. You could argue, however, that love in general is more the central theme just as friendship is in FiM.

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.

 

11 hours ago, Bas said:

3) I think taking such risks is from a business standpoint more clever when it is defining the show and setting it apart from other series. If you have done this already, it makes sense to not scare people away from it.

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.

[Odyssey 5,716]

A friendly reminder to everyone to stay on-topic and not take your discussions off-topic. The thread here is about MLP, its potential portrayal on homosexuality and how it affects companies like Hasbro. Thanks!

[Vlazamal 338]

No. Controversial, divisive, and the negative attention it would bring (particularly overseas) would bring more harm than good to the series.

 

There's already Lyra & BonBon, and Scootaloo's aunties (which caused drama that the fandom doesn't need at that.) Going more open about it would just trigger rage and censorship.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Vlazamal

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Vlazamal said:

No. Controversial, divisive, and the negative attention it would bring (particularly overseas) would bring more harm than good to the series.

 

There's already Lyra & BonBon, and Scootaloo's aunties (which caused drama that the fandom doesn't need at that.) Going more open about it would just trigger rage and censorship.

The fear of rage is literally how nothing changes and everything stays the same to be honest. Not doing something for fear of outrage is not always a good reason, but then again Hasbro is a business and they need to think about protecting their business, so I understand.

I can see it from both sides, I suppose.

[bigbertha 414]

Gay ponies are already all but confirmed with Lyra and BonBon so I don't really know why this is a question when the answer has already been given as yes.

[Quinch 1,120]

10 minutes ago, bigbertha said:

Gay ponies are already all but confirmed with Lyra and BonBon so I don't really know why this is a question when the answer has already been given as yes.

Pretty sure that's still very much a fanon thing - Slice of Life kinda made a point of telling us they're just friends.

[Vlazamal 338]

 

15 minutes ago, Quinch said:

Pretty sure that's still very much a fanon thing - Slice of Life kinda made a point of telling us they're just friends.

I think hasbro knows that they ship it

Edited March 22, 2019 by Vlazamal

[Amanita 6,826]

I feel very strongly that it should be allowed *cough cough* because most of my OCs are gay/lesbians *cough cough*

[ExplosionMare 18,062]

Technically there’s a theory out there that Scootaloo has two aunts in a relationship according to a book. I guess that counts.

[Ruddboy Olaf 10,628]

Of course. They already have straight ponies that kiss, cuddle, raise children, and are implied to fuck.

I don't see why gay ponies would be any different.

[Quinch 1,120]

1 hour ago, Vlazamal said:

I think hasbro knows that they ship it

Well, yeah, the fandom ships inanimate objects given half the chance.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Quinch

[They call me Loyalty 1,948]

All is allowed, especially lesbians.

[Misty Shadow 7,846]

About the Lyra and Bonbon thing, don't forget they enjoyed being merged onto the same body in Do Princesses Dream of Magic Sheep?. 

I think if they were just friends, that would horrify them.  

[Sunset Rose 254]

18 hours ago, Bas said:

No, SU really sets up love as a central topic. Yes, within relationships, but also between children & their parents (even if the latter are 4 female pseudo mums and one dad).

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.

 

18 hours ago, Bas said:

Because it allows to broaden design space, send a different message, tone or topic for a show. For instance, Steven Universe basically says I don't care who or what you love, as long as you love it.

For changing it in the first place (for another region), remember there are very many different cultures in the world.

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.

 

18 hours ago, Bas said:

Or appease some people who would like to see it. Might be actually quite some, considering how liberal the MLP community is as well as it having quite a lot of LGBT+ people.

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.

 

18 hours ago, Bas said:

I do think you might take the word sexuality a bit to literally here.

That is the way you take a definition, after all.

 

18 hours ago, Bas said:

It is about identity, and understanding what is going on.

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.

 

18 hours ago, Bas said:

And maybe teach some LGBT kids it is not unnatural and wrong to love/like/be attracted to someone from the same/other gender. That there are other ppl like them out there, and they need not to be ashamed of nor are alone.

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.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Sunset Rose

[CypherHoof 26,482]

Noting also that a major theme of S8 seems to be inclusion vs racism; while you could make the argument that having "different" children at school is much more likely for their target audience than having gay or non-binary, it is also true that some attendees may have non-traditional couples as their guardians (as has been mentioned as true for Scoots in a book, if not in the show)

It would seem appropriate, especially given S9 will be the last, to make this canon and maybe be a little more explicit about some of the other implied couples (lyra/bonbon and octavia/vinyl) - if that causes some issues with foreign syndication, well, its not like they weren't going to scrap it and reboot anyhow....

[Thrond 3,263]

Yes. There's no real difference between an opposite-sex relationship, of which My Little Pony has several, and a same-sex one. 

[Peppermint Larry 203]

I think they should include gay pony couples, but by no means do I believe they should have to explicitly state that those couples are gay. Unless they want to, of course. 

For such a "children's" show, delicate topics were discussed with tact: dead parents, divorced/separated parents, cults, puberty, racism, handicaps- all without being in-your-face about it. I'm sure that if the writers wanted to, they could pull off throwing a gay couple in the show without being explicit about it. Mostly because they are already doing so with Bon Bon and Lyra. Or with Octavia and Vinyl Scratch. 

The show deals with a lot of more mature jokes and themes at times, which makes it more of a family show than just a children's show. I think it's a little hypocritical of people to be disgusted at a hinted at gay couple, but not the fact that Fluttershy blushed when RD threw her blankets off of her, or when Cheese Sandwich said "Hey good lookin', want some mayonnaise?", or that the Wonderbolt's locker room seems to be co-ed, or that body pillows exist, or that we had an episode full of older mares that kept flirting with younger stallions. 

In later episodes, I'm noticing life lessons that deal more in the realm of adolescence (and even adulthood) than in childhood. I don't think throwing some gay couples in the show would be a bad idea, especially considering the level of tact that the writers have shown us before.

[sweetolebob18 728]

This is a TVY cartoon. Lyra + Bon-Bon & Octavia + Vinyl are as close as they are EVER going to get to this

Oh & Big Mac in drag

[The Historian 516]

On 3/17/2019 at 10:38 AM, EpicEnergy said:

Definitely not, making any character in any movie/TV show gay or transgender is repulsive to me.

And this attitude is why things don't change and people like me get continual amounts of shit from society at large.

Anyhow, this should not be a taboo. If done with grace and tact that simply says "they exist and they're just like everyone else," I fail to see an issue. A light touch would be beneficial, not detrimental. Some kids definitely need that in their lives and a tiny nod or reminder that they aren't alone can do wonders. Need to stop shying away from sexuality and gender issues. There's not really any reason that this has to be depicted as blatantly sexual...

[EpicEnergy 23,183]

For anyone here supportive of allowing gay characters in movies/TV shows, I have a question for you - wouldn't that pushing an agenda? Because in modern day culture there are many religious people (and some non-religious) who disagree with or even hate gays, so wouldn't including them in a movie/TV show indirectly say that being gay is acceptable? That seems like an agenda to me, because then that movie/TV show would be indirectly saying that those who disagree with and hate gays are wrong, and it would also be teaching children that being gay is acceptable without giving them a choice to agree or disagree with the lifestyle.

 

46 minutes ago, The Historian said:

And this attitude is why things don't change and people like me get continual amounts of shit from society at large.

Yes my attitude applied to a real life scenario would certainly be explanatory of what you said, but that isn't the context of my post. When I posted that, I was simply posting in the context of movies and TV shows, not in the context of a real life scenario. So, while I understand you would say that, I ask that you please leave my post in its intended context instead of using its supposed implications as a basis for your above statement.

At this point I might as well add a disclaimer to my original post, because I'm actually fine with gay people in real life - it's the inclusion of them in movies/TV shows that I dislike.

Edited March 25, 2019 by EpicEnergy
grammar

[Jedishy 3,548]

20 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

wouldn't that pushing an agenda?

No more than refusing to include people because someone might disagree with it. Art portrays life. LGBT people exist. Including reality in a movie or TV show is not an agenda. 

20 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

indirectly saying that those who disagree with and hate gays are wrong,

1. Hate for traits one cant control IS always wrong. 2. Including someone in a show is not agreeing or disagreeing with anything. Its simply portraying reality. 

20 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

teaching children that being gay is acceptable without giving them a choice to agree or disagree with the lifestyle.

Please explain how showing something prevents someone from disagreeing with it? Oh do you mean the parent and not the kids? Well maybe parents should do their job and know what their children watch and educate them according to their wishes. Society and its art is not a bubble to protect the fee fees of people offended by views they disagree with. 

20 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

it's the inclusion of them in movies/TV shows that I dislike.

Yea why would you want to see reality portrayed on TV or in movies. They can exist so long as we do not see them right? Nah sorry those two statements do not mesh.

[The Historian 516]

2 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

For anyone here supportive of allowing gay characters in movies/TV shows, I have a question for you - wouldn't that pushing an agenda? Because in modern day culture there are many religious people (and some non-religious) who disagree with or even hate gays, so wouldn't including them in a movie/TV show indirectly say that being gay is acceptable? That seems like an agenda to me, because then that movie/TV show would be indirectly saying that those who disagree with and hate gays are wrong, and it would also be teaching children that being gay is acceptable without giving them a choice to agree or disagree with the lifestyle.

 

Yes my attitude applied to a real life scenario would certainly be explanatory of what you said, but that isn't the context of my post. When I posted that, I was simply posting in the context of movies and TV shows, not in the context of a real life scenario. So, while I understand you would say that, I ask that you please leave my post in its intended context instead of using its supposed implications as a basis for your above statement.

At this point I might as well add a disclaimer to my original post, because I'm actually fine with gay people in real life - it's the inclusion of them in movies/TV shows that I dislike.

 

If by agenda you mean elucidating that yes, gay and transgender people do exist and are still human beings that deserve the same respect and rights as everyone else, then, yes, absolutely. In terms of forcing this as an ideal, not hardly. Why are you picking on on LGBT folks anyway? Just because it might make someone mad? You can claim anything "is an agenda" if you try hard enough. How about this for a lark? Heterosexual people in movies and TV is pushing the agenda that gay is totally wrong and the only right thing is being heterosexual! You'd call that laughable, wouldn't you? The same logic applies to your thinly veiled hateful rhetoric.

Even with the same context in play, my absolute disgust still stands! Stating that you dislike them in media because it implies that it's normal and accepted is only a small step from unmitigated hatred. There is nothing that be objectively harmful about depicting a homosexual couple or a transgender individual in any form of media. Being included for inclusions sake is a slap in the face but a well thought out character or scenario is not a problem and arguing that it is... you might as well just come out (ha, puns) and say you just hate gay people.

Chew on this however. Persona 4 has two characters who wrestle with LGBT issues: Kanji Tatsumi and Naoto Shirogane. Neither character would be as interesting and well rounded as they are without the LGBT aspects to them. Hell, Hammerlock from Borderlands 2 wouldn't be nearly as hilarious without the thinly veiled references to him being bisexual. To put it flatly, there is nothing wrong with having open LGBT characters in any form of media. And yeah, this includes ponies.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, EpicEnergy said:

For anyone here supportive of allowing gay characters in movies/TV shows, I have a question for you - wouldn't that pushing an agenda? Because in modern day culture there are many religious people (and some non-religious) who disagree with or even hate gays, so wouldn't including them in a movie/TV show indirectly say that being gay is acceptable? That seems like an agenda to me, because then that movie/TV show would be indirectly saying that those who disagree with and hate gays are wrong, and it would also be teaching children that being gay is acceptable without giving them a choice to agree or disagree with the lifestyle.

 

Yes my attitude applied to a real life scenario would certainly be explanatory of what you said, but that isn't the context of my post. When I posted that, I was simply posting in the context of movies and TV shows, not in the context of a real life scenario. So, while I understand you would say that, I ask that you please leave my post in its intended context instead of using its supposed implications as a basis for your above statement.

At this point I might as well add a disclaimer to my original post, because I'm actually fine with gay people in real life - it's the inclusion of them in movies/TV shows that I dislike.

 

I find it incredibly ironic that you are talking about pushing a gay agenda and saying you dislike the inclusion of gay people in movies and television while your avatar is that Rainbow Dash (a character commonly associated with homosexuality by the gay community themselves) dressed as Tracer, who is a confirmed lesbian.