Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

Should Gay Ponies be allowed?


SingularPony4

Recommended Posts

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?

I have a question for you- should we only allow things in movies/Tv shows that nobody disagrees with? Should we ban *insert group that you belong to here* from appearing in movies and tv shows because some people disagree with them? 

 

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, The Historian said:

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.

Well said mate well said. 

AD196625-7DF8-4322-8CCD-A08CFE5E61B2.thumb.gif.fb292636b3df14831873e66707a9f122.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2019 at 4:38 PM, EpicEnergy said:

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

 Subjective opinions aside, whether or not a show should have a gay or transgender character would depend on how well it is executed. Simply making a character gay for the sake of gaining more viewers or avoiding criticism for not having one, both are not good reasons and could possibly lead to the character's gayness being forced or sloppy writing regarding the character.

 

Perhaps starting your post with "repulsive" sends the wrong message? That comes off as pretty hateful when you later say you don't dislike gays.

However, what I find more odd is that I notice the majority of people making the "it'll be written badly" argument... Are not gay or trans. You sort of come off as like you feel you know how gay character should be written more than gay people would. Which it's odd that you have a strong opinion about how you think it's going to lead to "bad writing" when you have stated you don't like seeing it, meaning you're clearly not writing it or partaking much in the viewing of such things, so why should your opinion on the quality of gay character writing mean much?

You're also strawmanning pretty hard here. No one suggested they would add them for either of the reasons you suggested, so you're attacking a non-point.

Sorry but I am finding it hard to believe you don't hate gays when most of your "reasons" for why they can't be included have been debunked and yet you're still insisting that they can't be there. I mean you can do what you want, and believe what you want, and I'd respect that, but it looks better to just say "I don't like gays in my media" and admit that than try to bullcrap some kind of moral reason for it. Again, no judgment, if that's how you feel, then I accept it because we're all different, but please if it's how you feel just admit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Would it be pushing an agenda? I think it only would be if they are just doing it to make sure they included without and actual character to the character in question.

1 hour ago, EpicEnergy said:

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?

Yeah, and there a bunch of people who hate the jews, black people, and other minorities. You don't see media saying that is acceptable, right? Being gay is perfectly fine and there is no "illness" associated with it.

1 hour ago, EpicEnergy said:

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. 

Being gay IS OK. You can disagree with the lifestyle if you may so choose, but openly hating people just because they have a differeing opinion than you is just plain wrong.

 

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A note to everyone, discussion is perfectly fine on this matter but DO NOT bring personal insults to the discussion or you will be promptly removed from the thread.

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think they're doing a fine job of it already, the show openly supports lgbtq, and has the "best friends" couples for those that are willing to see it, it is a show made to sell toys after all, and they don't want to scare away potential customers, be it for for stupid reasons or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jedishy @The Historian @Gestum @TheTaZe @Kzr haekS Many of the arguments I would give right now would lead way off-topic, and many of them would be extremely debatable anyways, so I'm going to say that my argument (that LGBT inclusion is pushing an agenda) has been disproven. I also don't want to waste my time defending my argument that I really don't find it to be solid anyways, it was more of a thought that I wanted to bring up than an objective statement I believed was true. At this point, I don't really care about debating anymore in this topic, I actually stopped caring when I make my very first post, I don't know why I even bothered posting another argument in this topic.

 

I also want to clarify a few things, so I'll do that below.

On 3/25/2019 at 1:50 PM, Jedishy said:

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.

Because I disagree that its reality. That's just my subjective opinion though.

On 3/25/2019 at 1:54 PM, The Historian said:

Why are you picking on on LGBT folks anyway?

This topic's title is "Should gay ponies be allowed?", I'm only talking about them because it is the subject matter.

On 3/25/2019 at 1:54 PM, The Historian said:

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.

Since when did you know what I believe and my views on others? The ad hominem fallacy is written all over your post, ruining your objective arguments and your post's credibility.

"I'm actually fine with gay people in real life - it's the inclusion of them in movies/TV shows that I dislike"

On 3/25/2019 at 2:43 PM, Kzr haekS said:

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.

I know, someone else pointed that out to me as well recently. It is something I wasn't aware of until they did. I'm still keeping the avatar though, I don't mind. In all honesty, I really don't have a problem with LGBT people, the reason why I debate against them in discussions such as this is because I only disagree with their lifestyle.

On 3/25/2019 at 2:50 PM, Gestum said:

I have a question for you- should we only allow things in movies/Tv shows that nobody disagrees with? Should we ban *insert group that you belong to here* from appearing in movies and tv shows because some people disagree with them? 

That's a question I asked myself only after I posted that. Like I said before, the inclusion of LGBTs in movies and TV being an agenda was only a thought, and I didn't suggest banning them altogether from movies and TV either. It's a great question though regardless, which is why I considered my argument shaky - as getting rid of LGBTs in movies and TV and not the other things that people disagree with is inconsistent and fallacious reasoning.

To answer your questions simply, no and no.

On 3/25/2019 at 3:04 PM, Kzr haekS said:

Perhaps starting your post with "repulsive" sends the wrong message? That comes off as pretty hateful when you later say you don't dislike gays.

Yes, I've realized that awhile ago but I thought people got over it by now, it's just an opinion after all. And now I've realized that not changing it anyways despite knowing it sends the wrong message was also a mistake. It's alright though, I've learned quite a lot from the things that came as a result.

Thanks for notifying me about this though.

On 3/25/2019 at 3:04 PM, Kzr haekS said:

However, what I find more odd is that I notice the majority of people making the "it'll be written badly" argument... Are not gay or trans. You sort of come off as like you feel you know how gay character should be written more than gay people would. Which it's odd that you have a strong opinion about how you think it's going to lead to "bad writing" when you have stated you don't like seeing it, meaning you're clearly not writing it or partaking much in the viewing of such things, so why should your opinion on the quality of gay character writing mean much?

How does the identity of the people making the "it'll be written badly" argument discredit their arguments? You don't have to be gay to know what a good gay character should be like, character analysis can be done by anyone.

As for me, I have stated I don't like seeing gays in movies/TV shows, but that doesn't mean I haven't watched it before. And what does that matter anyways? I never claimed I was an experienced writer or had a great knowledge of gays in TV shows and movies, in the end my opinion is just an opinion. The objective argument that came afterwards is an observation, but none of that matters because you simply don't know what I am experienced and knowledgeable in and what I am not. No need to discredit my argument now of course, I already acknowledge that I unintentionally made a strawman fallacy, but I would have appreciated it if you didn't use an ad hominem fallacy to stomp it further into the ground.

On 3/25/2019 at 3:04 PM, Kzr haekS said:

Sorry but I am finding it hard to believe you don't hate gays when most of your "reasons" for why they can't be included have been debunked and yet you're still insisting that they can't be there.

Thanks for pointing this out to me, I was always wondering why people don't hesitate to call me a LGBT hater when I never say that or intentionally indicate that in my posts. Also, I'm not trying to insist that gays can't be in movies and TV, but maybe my posts collectively depict that anyways. And your not actually far from figuring out what I believe, as I do believe that the LGBT lifestyle is morally wrong, but I don't hate the people who live those lifestyles.

On 3/25/2019 at 3:04 PM, Kzr haekS said:

I mean you can do what you want, and believe what you want, and I'd respect that, but it looks better to just say "I don't like gays in my media" and admit that than try to bullcrap some kind of moral reason for it. Again, no judgment, if that's how you feel, then I accept it because we're all different, but please if it's how you feel just admit it.

I don't really mind gays being in my media, as long as they don't kiss all the time or do more sexual activities. I'm also not trying to justify what I believe or hide how I feel, even though it might come across as that because I have a habit of getting very argumentative with my posts in controversial topics.

 

Edited by EpicEnergy
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EpicEnergy said:

Because I disagree that its reality. That's just my subjective opinion though.

2 hours ago, The Historian said:

You disagree that its reality? You disagree that gay people exist? Shoot is a bunch of the members of this board fading away like Thanos just snapped? 

2 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

as I do believe that the LGBT lifestyle is morally wrong, but I don't hate the people who live those lifestyles.

Something that does no harm to anyone morally wrong now that is funny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll keep my final answer simple. They can be allowed on the show as long as it's NOT shoved in your face and them being gay is not their only trait.

From what I understand, that kid in Andi Mack realizing he's gay was decently handled. If Andi Mack can do it, so can FiM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jedishy said:

You disagree that its reality? You disagree that gay people exist?

I didn't mean "reality" and "exist" in that sense, my bad. I meant that I don't think people are born gay with no choice in the matter, I think that the gay gene doesn't exist. 

3 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Something that does no harm to anyone morally wrong now that is funny

Call it funny and assume things all you want, I'm not going any further with this and I'd appreciate it if you did the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sondash Studios said:

I don't really agree, mostly because there's no point in adding it to the show.

Teaching kids that it exists and it's okay would be a reason I could fathom.

4 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

At this point, I don't really care about debating anymore in this topic, I actually stopped caring when I make my very first post, I don't know why I even bothered posting another argument in this topic.

If you didn't care why are you still replying even now and defending your points still?

5 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

Because I disagree that its reality. That's just my subjective opinion though.

Disagree with what being reality? Disagreeing with reality isn't really much of a subjective opinion, it's... no offense delusion. I am confident that you don't mean you disagree with reality and that you are not delusional, so I am assuming you just worded this poorly.

6 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

Since when did you know what I believe and my views on others? The ad hominem fallacy is written all over your post, ruining your objective arguments and your post's credibility.

 "I'm actually fine with gay people in real life - it's the inclusion of them in movies/TV shows that I dislike"

You literally used the exact words that you were repulsed by them.

7 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

I know, someone else pointed that out to me as well recently. It's something I wasn't aware of until they did. I'm still keeping the avatar though, I don't mind. In all honesty, I really don't have a problem with LGBT people, the reason why I debate against them in discussions such as this is because I only disagree with their lifestyle.

1

How exactly does one disagree with one's lifestyle? Their sexuality isn't their lifestyle, it's part of who they are. You can't really "disagree" with someone's sexuality. Their sexuality is ingrained in them and hardwired, that's literally almost the same as saying you disagree with someone being short. It's something they can't change and have no control over.

Clarity would be nice.

10 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

How does the identity of the people making the "it'll be written badly" argument discredit their arguments? You don't have to be gay to know what a good gay character should be like, character analysis can be done by anyone.

Because you are also making it clear that you're very against viewing gay characters in things, so that implies that you don't see them that often. Also willing to wager a gay person would know how to write a gay character more than a straight person on average. So yeah, it's relevant. Does that mean it CAN'T be done well by a straight person? No, however, you explicitly stated you don't like viewing them so that to me suggests you likely don't have much experience with gay character writing, so I ask again: why should your opinion on the matter hold weight?

12 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

but I would have appreciated it if you didn't use an ad hominin fallacy to stomp it further into the ground.

But I'm not.

I literally pointed out that your own words makes it sound like you have very little experience writing or observing gay characters, so I was posing the question of why we should hold your opinion to mean much on the subject. That seems like perfectly sound reasoning does it not? You're proposing an argument of quality, and I am pointing out what makes you an expert on quality enough to quantify your concerns as any more valid than the average joe? I think that's perfectly reasonable discourse, would you not?

14 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

And your not actually far from figuring out what I believe, as I do believe that the LGBT lifestyle is morally wrong, but I don't hate the people who live those lifestyles.

That's an argument for a whole other thread, but you have the right to believe it.

15 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

I don't really mind gays being in my media, as long as they don't kiss all the time or do more sexual activities. I'm also not trying to justify what I believe or hide how I feel, even though it might come across as that because I have a habit of getting very argumentative with my posts in controversial topics.

 

It's fine, you're entitled to your views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

I didn't mean "reality" and "exist" in that sense, my bad. I meant that I don't think people are born gay with no choice in the matter, I think that the gay gene doesn't exist. 

10 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Yea lots so science disagrees with you and very few people claim its solely down to a single gene. Frankly, the research shows its a combination of genetics, in utero environmental factors and your cultures shaping of how you perceive the feelings the former two create. 

 

The simple fact is this, your wanting to force your moral viewpoint on others is no reason for an artist on a show that is about friendship and acceptance not to depict something because someones feels might get wounded. Either there can be no relationships shown or any nonexplicit relationship is ok. Any argument outside of that is special pleading and about as sensible as saying oh well we might offend some religious people with magic like they got upset with Harry Potter so we gotta get rid of the Unicorns and Alicorns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

I didn't mean "reality" and "exist" in that sense, my bad. I meant that I don't think people are born gay with no choice in the matter, I think that the gay gene doesn't exist

Of course you don't because you're not gay/bi. But you're wrong. You aren't "born" gay per se but you don't choose to be gay. I didn't choose to be interested in guys. I just was. Acting on those feelings is a choice. Being is not. There's no gay Gene, it's just underlying feelings that you can't control. 

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely think that there should be at least some inclusion, whether it just be background characters or major characters, it wouldn’t matter to me, I’d still enjoy seeing some involvement

And hopefully, you didn’t mean to put it the way you did, but the title seems really homophobic to me. But hopefully it’s just a question and you aren’t trying to be rude, (and I hope I’m not coming off as rude either)

Edited by Amanita
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, EpicEnergy said:

@Jedishy @The Historian @Gestum @TheTaZe @Kzr haekS Many of the arguments I would give right now would lead way off-topic, and many of them would be extremely debatable anyways, so I'm going to say that my argument (that LGBT inclusion is pushing an agenda) has been disproven. I also don't want to waste my time defending my argument that I really don't find it to be solid anyways, it was more of a thought that I wanted to bring up than an objective statement I believed was true. At this point, I don't really care about debating anymore in this topic, I actually stopped caring when I make my very first post, I don't know why I even bothered posting another argument in this topic.

  

I also want to clarify a few things, so I'll do that below.

 Because I disagree that its reality. That's just my subjective opinion though.

This topic's title is "Should gay ponies be allowed?", I'm only talking about them because it is the subject matter.

Since when did you know what I believe and my views on others? The ad hominem fallacy is written all over your post, ruining your objective arguments and your post's credibility.

"I'm actually fine with gay people in real life - it's the inclusion of them in movies/TV shows that I dislike"

I know, someone else pointed that out to me as well recently. It's something I wasn't aware of until they did. I'm still keeping the avatar though, I don't mind. In all honesty, I really don't have a problem with LGBT people, the reason why I debate against them in discussions such as this is because I only disagree with their lifestyle.

That's a question I asked myself only after I posted that. Like I said before, the inclusion of LGBTs in movies and TV being an agenda was only a thought, and I didn't suggest banning them altogether from TV and movies either. It's a great question though regardless, which is why I considered my argument shaky - as getting rid of LGBTs in movies and TV and not the other things that people disagree with is inconsistent and fallacious reasoning.

To answer your questions simply, no and no.

Yes, I've realized that awhile ago but I thought people got over it by now, it's just an opinion after all. And now I've realized that not changing it anyways despite knowing it sends the wrong message was also a mistake. It's alright though, I've learned quite a lot from the things that came as a result.

Thanks for notifying me about this though.

How does the identity of the people making the "it'll be written badly" argument discredit their arguments? You don't have to be gay to know what a good gay character should be like, character analysis can be done by anyone.

As for me, I have stated I don't like seeing gays in movies/TV shows, but that doesn't mean I haven't watched it before. And what does that matter anyways? I never claimed I was an experienced writer or had a great knowledge of gays in TV shows and movies, in the end my opinion is just an opinion. The objective argument that came afterwards is an observation, but none of that matters because you simply don't know what I am experienced and knowledgeable in and what I am not. No need to discredit my argument now of course, I already acknowledge that I unintentionally made a strawman fallacy, but I would have appreciated it if you didn't use an ad hominin fallacy to stomp it further into the ground.

Thanks for pointing this out to me, I was always wondering why people don't hesitate to call me a LGBT hater when I never say that or intentionally indicate that in my posts. Also, I'm not trying to insist that gays can't be in movies and TV, but maybe my posts collectively depict that anyways. And your not actually far from figuring out what I believe, as I do believe that the LGBT lifestyle is morally wrong, but I don't hate the people who live those lifestyles.

I don't really mind gays being in my media, as long as they don't kiss all the time or do more sexual activities. I'm also not trying to justify what I believe or hide how I feel, even though it might come across as that because I have a habit of getting very argumentative with my posts in controversial topics.

Your subjective opinion is 1000 percent incorrect. I fall under two letters of the LGBT umbrella and I most definitely exist. As do my closest friends who also happen to fall under the same umbrella. I'm not sure why you think your opinion outweighs reality.

Even though this thread is about one thing specifically, you seem like the type who would still blather on about it in a thread that was not specifically about it. If you're going to target one group, might as well go after anything and everything that's "questionable." Your argument was flimsy at best (not that you had one), but eventually, we find the real reason - you don't like the "lifestyle." I'll get to that later.

My keks are out of control. You make a complete strawman argument made of utter tripe then have the gall to whine when you get called on your hateful rhetoric? Calm your boots there, Hoss. Your statements do the damage, not the responses. I made a logical leap, but if you want me to actually attack you, I can do that. I used to be quite the champ, but I'll pass on it today.

Here's why your statement of "I have no problem with gay people in real life" doesn't work. There's a twofold issue with it. First, it's literally the homophobic equivalent of "I can't be a racist, I totally have a black friend." It's equally disparaging while pretending not to be. Second, it implies that LGBT people are fine so long as you don't need to know that they exist and anything to do with them is then wrong. Quite a shitty thing to say and doesn't make those of us who are LGBT feel too good about ourselves. And it makes me question your overall character if you're that incensed by media depicting what you're not.

Regardless of your reasoning, suggesting that a character simply being LGBT is "repulsive" (your word mind you), you've shredded any sort of moral high ground you could have assumed, not that you had any after such a statement in the first place. In a very roundabout way, you said my entire effing existence is repulsive. Then you doubled down and tried to defend your stance, albeit poorly. Now that you've been slagged by several users, you're recanting. I hope that means you've learned something. I'm inclined not to be positive about it but I'm also not one to rugsweep this kind of thing.

You said, point blank, that LGBT people in moves and television was, in your words, repulsive. How did you expect people to react when you lay out such an anti-FIM message like that? This is meant to be an open, accepting community and you threw down a very close-minded, negative statement. There can be worse things said about you and everyone's doing a remarkable job not ripping into you.

But here's where we come to the magical, and fake, crux of your argument: our lifestyle. Pray tell, what is my lifestyle? What about me is so different? Oh right, not a damn thing. Yes, I'm trans and very much not heterosexual, but what does that mean in terms of lifestyle? Well... nothing. I work a steady, full time job, I have hobbies, I have bills, I do the same things "normal people" do. I don't have a "lifestyle" super unique to me for being LGBT. I'm not sure where people get the idea that LGBT people have some special lifestyle... cause... we ain't got one.

But I'm sure you'd be fine with a totes hetero couple doing the same things. If so, you're just foisting a pointless, archaic double standard that has no place in modern society.

37 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Something that does no harm to anyone morally wrong now that is funny

This is what happens when people look to mystical books from a bygone era for tales of morality.

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Frostgage said:

Yes, absolutely. For the very simple reason that homosexuality is not something to be censored, and is thus appropriate for all ages.

Although I already posted here, I would say exactly this, and frankly I see no other reasonable way of looking at it. If it offends you so much, it's not THEIR problem.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The Historian said:

This is what happens when people look to mystical books from a bygone era for tales of morality.

Ya can't make that call. I am religious myself. I know many people of various faiths that are not that way. It has nothing to do with the source material and everything to do with the person reading it and the way they choose to interpret it and what is most important from it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Ya can't make that call. I am religious myself. I know many people of various faiths that are not that way. It has nothing to do with the source material and everything to do with the person reading it and the way they choose to interpret it and what is most important from it. 

I'm not a big fan of religion. Don't care if you believe but it's not as pleasant as some like to think it is. But if you dig it and you're not a horrible person, more power to ya.

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sondash Studios said:

I don't really agree, mostly because there's no point in adding it to the show.

Uhh

Representation for young viewers so they don’t have to just see heterosexual representation of characters that are gay or a lesbian just like them? 

Reassurance that any young viewer who might be having feelings of attraction to the same gender that it’s fine? That they should feel zero shame for it? 

To teach other children that gay men and lesbians are just like everyone else even if the characters are ponies they’re still normal?

That there’s nothing wrong with being gay?  

Pretty sure those are some pretty good reasons why this would be a good thing. 

Edited by OdellaLark
  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jedishy said:

Ya can't make that call. I am religious myself. I know many people of various faiths that are not that way. It has nothing to do with the source material and everything to do with the person reading it and the way they choose to interpret it and what is most important from it. 

But you can? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ~Dusky~ said:

But you can? 

Never said that but the fact is that if there are religious people that are not negative against LGBT people then it is not " what happens when you etc etc " as per the quote I responded to. So yes if I can provide hundreds of thousands if not millions of exceptions to the statement then you cant correlate the two. * And the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of pagans and various religious people that do not care who you love is the provision of proof. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OdellaLark said:

Uhh

Representation for young viewers so they don’t have to just see heterosexual representation of characters that are gay or a lesbian just like them? 

Reassurance that any young viewer who might be having feelings of attraction to the same gender that it’s fine? That they should feel zero shame for it? 

To teach other children that gay men and lesbians are just like everyone else even if the characters are ponies they’re still normal?

That there’s nothing wrong with being gay?  

Pretty sure those are some pretty good reasons why this would be a good thing. 

I'm just saying that right now, there wouldn't be any point to add it in if they haven't already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...