Disney brings lesbian moms to TV

[Larrymc]

Sad to see a trusted family friendly corporation, going politically correct.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/disney-brings-lesbian-moms-to-tv/

[fj1200]

Sad to see a trusted family friendly corporation, going politically correct.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/disney-brings-lesbian-moms-to-tv/


“In the same way the Boy Scouts had a ‘no-sex’ policy before advocates sought to indoctrinate youth, Disney should be leaving sex out of its programming for young audiences,” Howard told CP. “This is reflective of the dissolution of marriage and the traditional family unit that we know is best for kids. Disney (http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/contact-us) is clearly looking to gauge public reaction so we should see this as an opportunity for those who disagree with exposing children to same-sex behavior to give Disney and their cable provider feedback.”

There going to be showing lesbian sex on TV? :eek:

[tailfins]

What do you think of a "scared straight" strategy for teaching kids that homosexual activity is immoral (I said activity, not orientation)? We visited Provincetown and my sons described its residents as "inappropriate". There's no more curiosity nor mysteriousness about homosexual behavior, just inappropriateness.

In case you're not familiar with P-town, here's a link:

http://ptown.org/Images/2013%20Cover.jpg


http://ptown.org/Home.asp

[Abbey Marie]

Viewing a gay parade, for example, would scare almost anyone.

[Larrymc]

There going to be showing lesbian sex on TV? :eek:Thanks for the link, they have one mans opinion.

[Arbo]

I am thankful that most kids today are far more open minded than older generations. That whole live and let live thing.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am thankful that most kids today are far more open minded than older generations. That whole live and let live thing. I just bet you are. Open minded progressiveness has been why we find ourselves in this sorry condition but your cheering that comes as no shock. Most kids today are far less educated so you are correct they are far more liberal. Not anything to brag about like you just did. --Tyr

[Jeff]

I am thankful that most kids today are far more open minded than older generations. That whole live and let live thing.

Man at 4 and 5 years old I don't want kids thinking about lesbians or straight sex , and honestly I haven't met to many open minded 4 year old kids lately :rolleyes:

[Arbo]

Man at 4 and 5 years old I don't want kids thinking about lesbians or straight sex , and honestly I haven't met to many open minded 4 year old kids lately :rolleyes:

That's the thing, kids don't think about it. They may see two mom's, then they go 'oh, ok', and move on.

Now I don't think schools should be teaching anything related to sex at that age.

[Jeff]

That's the thing, kids don't think about it. They may see two mom's, then they go 'oh, ok', and move on.

Now I don't think schools should be teaching anything related to sex at that age.

Fair enough I can agree with that but honestly I don't want kids seeing it at all ( any type of sex) because as you said most don't pay attention but some do

[Arbo]

Fair enough I can agree with that but honestly I don't want kids seeing it at all ( any type of sex) because as you said most don't pay attention but some do

Oh, seeing straight out sex? Definitely a no-no. I don't know what the proper age is... I think for my kids like 30 or so would be great. ;)

But no doubt they seem to 'find out' a lot more at much younger ages than they used to. Or so it seems. No doubt because there are so many sexualized tv shows. I think MTV is one of the leads on that front.

[Jeff]

Oh, seeing straight out sex? Definitely a no-no. I don't know what the proper age is... I think for my kids like 30 or so would be great. ;)

But no doubt they seem to 'find out' a lot more at much younger ages than they used to. Or so it seems. No doubt because there are so many sexualized tv shows. I think MTV is one of the leads on that front.

I have 2 boys that just started middle school and yes they do know a lot more about sexual things than we did at that age, heck they learned quite a bit while on the bus going to grammar school

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's the thing, kids don't think about it. They may see two mom's, then they go 'oh, ok', and move on.

Now I don't think schools should be teaching anything related to sex at that age.

Its called "conditioning" but apparently you haven't a clue about that. Start when they are 4 or 5 to program their brains that two men or two women kissing is ok, then proceed to expose more as they get older.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have 2 boys that just started middle school and yes they do know a lot more about sexual things than we did at that age, heck they learned quite a bit while on the bus going to grammar school

With Arbo's much heralded "conditioning" they'll know more about perverted sex by 10 than most normal adults do now... That's how they do it my friend. One little step at a time just like the one little cut at a time method.--Tyr

[Larrymc]

Its called "conditioning" but apparently you haven't a clue about that. Start when they are 4 or 5 to program their brains that two men or two women kissing is ok, then proceed to expose more as they get older.Your right Tyr just like in the early 70s we began to see your "token gay" in every program, usually as a comedic role, then it slowly got to be more and more serious rolls, and eventually lead to where we are now. You ask me Enlightened is an innocent sounding way to say indoctrinated

[Arbo]

Its called "conditioning" but apparently you haven't a clue about that. Start when they are 4 or 5 to program their brains that two men or two women kissing is ok, then proceed to expose more as they get older.

It appears you were conditioned as a child. Either that or forbidding from attending school, possibly because knowledge is the work of 'the devil'.

[Trigg]

Disney has been pro-gay for quite some time now. This should be of no surprise to anyone.

Modern Family is already on TV, every TV show and movie out there lately has gay characters. Glee was ruined IMHO when practically EVERY character came out as gay.

[Abbey Marie]

That's the thing, kids don't think about it. They may see two mom's, then they go 'oh, ok', and move on.

Now I don't think schools should be teaching anything related to sex at that age.

And by the time they do think about it, it's been normalized. Progressive agenda fulfilled? Check.

[Arbo]

And by the time they do think about it, it's been normalized. Progressive agenda fulfilled? Check.

Progressive agenda? I suppose some think that.

Those that believe in the Constitution and the freedom, liberty and equality of opportunity that it stands for don't dive into such partisan hackery.

[Gaffer]

Progressive agenda? I suppose some think that.

Those that believe in the Constitution and the freedom, liberty and equality of opportunity that it stands for don't dive into such partisan hackery.

Many think that way. It has been drilled into everyones head, by the media, that queers are normal and acceptable. I have no religion for you to throw in my face. So I'll make it is simply. Queers are unnatural. Making them normal does not change that. Making them special does not provide liberty. They already have equality, the problem is they want special treatment.

It is all part of the progressive agenda. And the progressive agenda is all about taking away our liberty. But you just keep thinking it's all partisan hackery.

[Arbo]

Many think that way. It has been drilled into everyones head, by the media, that queers are normal and acceptable. I have no religion for you to throw in my face. So I'll make it is simply. Queers are unnatural. Making them normal does not change that. Making them special does not provide liberty. They already have equality, the problem is they want special treatment.

It is all part of the progressive agenda. And the progressive agenda is all about taking away our liberty. But you just keep thinking it's all partisan hackery.

1) that you refer to them as 'queers' shows bias over logic and rational discussion.
2) I think it has been shown in many studies that there is nothing 'unnatural' about homosexuality, as it occurs in nature across species. You disagree, I don't care.
3) allowing for two adults to obtain the same legal status as other adults does not make them 'special', it merely gives them the equality of opportunity, which is part of the ideals of the Constitution.
4) if gay marriage is 'progressive agenda' and 'progressive agenda' is about 'taking away our liberty', can you explain how a same sex couple being married takes away YOUR liberty? Or that of anyone else? Because quite honestly, that last sentence of yours is some seriously twisted and contradictory logic out there.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Progressive agenda? I suppose some think that.

Those that believe in the Constitution and the freedom, liberty and equality of opportunity that it stands for don't dive into such partisan hackery.

Yeah, no Democrat would ever be against gay marriage, right?

Oops.....

http://craigfarmer.blogspot.com/2010/02/democrats-against-gay-marriage.html


We need Democrats to stand against gay marriage.

We need Democrats to stand against the agenda of the gay rights lobby.


There is a group of people who are determined to change our society regardless of the implications and whether the American people agree. They have been working in Hollywood for decades, and you can see the results not only in many t.v. shows and movies, but even in commercials. There has been an assault on traditional marriage, a celebration of divorce, and a drive not only to tolerate but accept as equal people engaging in a homosexual lifestyle.


Also, the younger generation is clearly more supportive of gay marriage and gay rights in general. This is an important time when we as Democrats need to reverse this trend. We need to say it is ok for us to believe it's not ok to be gay. I'm like millions of other Democrats who wouldn't want my children to be gay. While we should treat everyone with respect, we the people through our government have a right to define our culture and laws for the common good.


I want the millions of Democrats who agree to take back our party from the activists who are controlling the levers of power. Don't allow them to control the language, and bully you into silence. You don't have to support gay rights just because you're a democrat. You don't have to be quiet because many of them support the rest of the Democratic agenda. We need a truly progressive agenda that is good for America. That means not only supporting traditional marriage, but making it better and stronger.

[aboutime]

1) that you refer to them as 'queers' shows bias over logic and rational discussion.
2) I think it has been shown in many studies that there is nothing 'unnatural' about homosexuality, as it occurs in nature across species. You disagree, I don't care.
3) allowing for two adults to obtain the same legal status as other adults does not make them 'special', it merely gives them the equality of opportunity, which is part of the ideals of the Constitution.
4) if gay marriage is 'progressive agenda' and 'progressive agenda' is about 'taking away our liberty', can you explain how a same sex couple being married takes away YOUR liberty? Or that of anyone else? Because quite honestly, that last sentence of yours is some seriously twisted and contradictory logic out there.


Thank you Arbo for defending what millions of Americans see as Un-natural, and Distorted acts based on the loss of moral compass. But then. Hiding behind that same constitution to make yourself sound more astute...never has worked.

[Gaffer]

1) that you refer to them as 'queers' shows bias over logic and rational discussion.
2) I think it has been shown in many studies that there is nothing 'unnatural' about homosexuality, as it occurs in nature across species. You disagree, I don't care.
3) allowing for two adults to obtain the same legal status as other adults does not make them 'special', it merely gives them the equality of opportunity, which is part of the ideals of the Constitution.
4) if gay marriage is 'progressive agenda' and 'progressive agenda' is about 'taking away our liberty', can you explain how a same sex couple being married takes away YOUR liberty? Or that of anyone else? Because quite honestly, that last sentence of yours is some seriously twisted and contradictory logic out there.

1. Yes I have a bias. Or if you prefer, bigotry. It doesn't mean I don't use logic and rational in a discussion. The term queer is the most proper use because it means odd and different, not part of the normal.

2. It has not been shown in any studies that there are animal queers. That is just mythology to support the queer agenda. Animals act on instinct. Smell, sight and sound are what stimulate them. Nothing more than that. They don't rationalize.

3. They can in many states establish a civil union. They can establish contracts. But what they want is to be married in churches, that don't want them there, force business to serve them, in spite of their personal beliefs. That makes them "special" and takes away others liberty.

4. Example, two queers went to a bakery to get a wedding cake. The bakery said no. The queers, instead of going to another bakery sued to force the bakery to do it. Bakeries liberty expensively removed.

5. Explain what you find contradictory in my sentence from the previous post.

[Larrymc]

1) that you refer to them as 'queers' shows bias over logic and rational discussion.
2) I think it has been shown in many studies that there is nothing 'unnatural' about homosexuality, as it occurs in nature across species. You disagree, I don't care.
3) allowing for two adults to obtain the same legal status as other adults does not make them 'special', it merely gives them the equality of opportunity, which is part of the ideals of the Constitution.
4) if gay marriage is 'progressive agenda' and 'progressive agenda' is about 'taking away our liberty', can you explain how a same sex couple being married takes away YOUR liberty? Or that of anyone else? Because quite honestly, that last sentence of yours is some seriously twisted and contradictory logic out there.It is as natural, as the desire to have sex with children, Animals and family, according to your logic it is, our laws that set age limits, deny sex with your own children are bestiality that need to change because they have the same argument they don't choose to have these desires. The fact that Homosexual desire has been around sense Biblical days and the Bible had to warn us not to participate, shows that for some it can be a real desire. but that in no way makes it natural, any more than the other sexual desires i mentioned. Sodomy was illegal until fairly recently, now that homosexuality has been forced on society, how long before we must accept the other unnatural desires as the norm, as history has shown every society that has accepted homosexuality has also embraced the others.

[Arbo]

Yeah, no Democrat would ever be against gay marriage, right?

I don't know and do not care, it has nothing to do with the discussion. Please try to track what is actually being discussed.


Thank you Arbo for defending what millions of Americans see as Un-natural, and Distorted acts based on the loss of moral compass. But then. Hiding behind that same constitution to make yourself sound more astute...never has worked.

So what you are saying, is you have nothing to defend your position, which appears to be that it's ok to treat those you do not like differently. Again, bigoted thought. And not a one of you has provided anything resembling a rational defense of your bigoted beliefs. Not a one believes in the thoughts and ideas that the Constitution stand for, no matter how much you yell that you do.

[aboutime]

I don't know and do not care, it has nothing to do with the discussion. Please try to track what is actually being discussed.



So what you are saying, is you have nothing to defend your position, which appears to be that it's ok to treat those you do not like differently. Again, bigoted thought. And not a one of you has provided anything resembling a rational defense of your bigoted beliefs. Not a one believes in the thoughts and ideas that the Constitution stand for, no matter how much you yell that you do.


Have no position to defend. But enjoy how you brag, and make us want to emulate you.

[jimnyc]

1) that you refer to them as 'queers' shows bias over logic and rational discussion.

Fwiw - gay folks have referred to themselves as queers for a lot longer and more often. There was even a recent TV show with it in the name. They used to parade often using the term, and use slogans with it. They toss around the queer and dyke terms like it's no big deal. They don't get to own the word. If they take issue with it, then they shouldn't use it either. But one shouldn't be considered bias simply because they utilize a word that many in that group use themselves. There's no reason I can think of that one would use that term, and somehow also makes their argument illogical or irrational. One can certainly do both.

Personally, I refuse to have a group of people, or the PC police, telling me what words I can and cannot use. I understand I may be judged on my choice of words, and I can deal with that. But there are people out there telling us we can't use words like gay, faggot, queers, dykes - and words from all the other offended people and their groups.

My opinion of someone or a group, or what words I use to describe them, shouldn't affect my argument. One can start with "Obama is a scumbag..." - but those words in no way should change what the person says next. What is said next should be what makes or break their argument.

Does this mean I am encouraging disparaging remarks about any and all groups? Nope (only the ones I disagree with!) :) But one shouldn't have any portion of their argument dismissed as a result. That's "grading" their argument based on a word some would take issue with, which shows a bias on their part I might add.

I don't know what the fuck I'm saying! LOL It just irritates me at times when I see people scolded for using terms that are already abused by the people supposedly being protected from the words.

[Arbo]

1. Yes I have a bias. Or if you prefer, bigotry. It doesn't mean I don't use logic and rational in a discussion. The term queer is the most proper use because it means odd and different, not part of the normal.

BS, its a slur, pure and simple.


2. It has not been shown in any studies that there are animal queers.

I believe you believe that fantasy.


3. They can in many states establish a civil union. They can establish contracts. But what they want is to be married in churches, that don't want them there, force business to serve them, in spite of their personal beliefs. That makes them "special" and takes away others liberty.

Honestly civil unions are fine, and they should apply to everyone that want's to be 'married' outside of a church. 'Marriage' is a church thing, not a government thing, or should be. But I don't believe anyone is trying to get churches to perform marriages they do not want to perform. That would violate the rights of churches to decide who they do or do not perform services for. But there are churches that have no problem performing a 'Marriage' for a same sex couple. They even exist in my small redneck town.


4. Example, two queers went to a bakery to get a wedding cake. The bakery said no. The queers, instead of going to another bakery sued to force the bakery to do it. Bakeries liberty expensively removed.

In that case the same sex couple was in the wrong, as bakeries turn down business for a variety of reasons. But I have also seen such frivolous lawsuits throughout the years from heterosexuals that are just pig headed and expect others to do what they want them to do. In a country of 300+ million, a few cases, even a few dozen cases, does not present a 'case' that such a thing is the norm.

[Arbo]

Fwiw - gay folks have referred to themselves as queers for a lot longer and more often. There was even a recent TV show with it in the name. They used to parade often using the term, and use slogans with it. They toss around the queer and dyke terms like it's no big deal. They don't get to own the word. If they take issue with it, then they shouldn't use it either. But one shouldn't be considered bias simply because they utilize a word that many in that group use themselves. There's no reason I can think of that one would use that term, and somehow also makes their argument illogical or irrational. One can certainly do both.

Personally, I refuse to have a group of people, or the PC police, telling me what words I can and cannot use. I understand I may be judged on my choice of words, and I can deal with that. But there are people out there telling us we can't use words like gay, faggot, queers, dykes - and words from all the other offended people and their groups.

My opinion of someone or a group, or what words I use to describe them, shouldn't affect my argument. One can start with "Obama is a scumbag..." - but those words in no way should change what the person says next. What is said next should be what makes or break their argument.

Does this mean I am encouraging disparaging remarks about any and all groups? Nope (only the ones I disagree with!) :) But one shouldn't have any portion of their argument dismissed as a result. That's "grading" their argument based on a word some would take issue with, which shows a bias on their part I might add.

I don't know what the fuck I'm saying! LOL It just irritates me at times when I see people scolded for using terms that are already abused by the people supposedly being protected from the words.

You are correct in that people can be and are judged by the words they use. BTW, thank you for a good response, thus providing a good example for others on how to respond to and with content vs personal comments that add nothing to the discussion.

[jimnyc]

You are correct in that people can be and are judged by the words they use. BTW, thank you for a good response, thus providing a good example for others on how to respond to and with content vs personal comments that add nothing to the discussion.

Even take away "queers", and lets get to the root - that the term makes someone look biased. Pretty much every member here is biased about any subject they post about, politically speaking. Of course bias is looked at differently when it's taken against a group of people or an individual. But even in sports. Imagine I degrade your favorite football team and champion my own, then we debate the teams. My degrading comments shouldn't change any rational argument I put forth. But I do concede that at times it IS best to avoid it, as MANY will in fact be dismissive of portions.

You can take this discussion and apply it to "nigger" or "nigga" as well. I don't think any group should be allowed to take "ownership" of a word, use it and abuse it, and then cry foul if someone else uses it in a manner they see as abusive. Or we can even go with less abused words as "redneck", which can be a friendly term to some, but used in an attempt to degrade another as well. Most wouldn't think too badly of me if I called another a redneck. But call just one black person a nigger... And Lord help you if it's a woman!!! LOL

P.S. - to stay more on topic, why is Disney worried about bringing forth a lesbian couple? Disney shouldn't be in the business of worrying about others sexual orientation.

[Arbo]

Even take away "queers", and lets get to the root - that the term makes someone look biased. Pretty much every member here is biased about any subject they post about, politically speaking. Of course bias is looked at differently when it's taken against a group of people or an individual. But even in sports. Imagine I degrade your favorite football team and champion my own, then we debate the teams. My degrading comments shouldn't change any rational argument I put forth. But I do concede that at times it IS best to avoid it, as MANY will in fact be dismissive of portions.

You can take this discussion and apply it to "nigger" or "nigga" as well. I don't think any group should be allowed to take "ownership" of a word, use it and abuse it, and then cry foul if someone else uses it in a manner they see as abusive. Or we can even go with less abused words as "redneck", which can be a friendly term to some, but used in an attempt to degrade another as well. Most wouldn't think too badly of me if I called another a redneck. But call just one black person a nigger... And Lord help you if it's a woman!!! LOL

P.S. - to stay more on topic, why is Disney worried about bringing forth a lesbian couple? Disney shouldn't be in the business of worrying about others sexual orientation.

Perhaps they should not change any rational argument, but they do to a lot of people. Honestly I rarely see such terms used followed by rational arguments. It is often more degrading to one's argument than to those they seek to degrade. I can use 'bad' words just as well, but it almost always leads to a degradation of any discussion as it distracts from the point of most discussions, in my view.

My roots come out of west virginia, so I have a huge family full of rednecks, hillbillies and white trash. But they all take pride in what they are so those words are never negative to them.

And back to the topic: AFAIC, Disney shouldn't be in business, at least outside of theme parks. They offer nothing but bad role models and horrible examples for today's youth (in terms of their programs).

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It appears you were conditioned as a child. Either that or forbidding from attending school, possibly because knowledge is the work of 'the devil'. What great knowledge have you shown so far here? That's right the great enlightenment that 1. religion is false and 2. gay sex is normal and perfectly fine to have gay marriage shoved down our collective throats even when the majority votes against it. I have to guess you are all for gay sex for a reason...like personal experience. Don't be shy, spit it out long enough to type a reply . :laugh2:--Tyr

[Gaffer]

BS, its a slur, pure and simple.



I believe you believe that fantasy.



Honestly civil unions are fine, and they should apply to everyone that want's to be 'married' outside of a church. 'Marriage' is a church thing, not a government thing, or should be. But I don't believe anyone is trying to get churches to perform marriages they do not want to perform. That would violate the rights of churches to decide who they do or do not perform services for. But there are churches that have no problem performing a 'Marriage' for a same sex couple. They even exist in my small redneck town.



In that case the same sex couple was in the wrong, as bakeries turn down business for a variety of reasons. But I have also seen such frivolous lawsuits throughout the years from heterosexuals that are just pig headed and expect others to do what they want them to do. In a country of 300+ million, a few cases, even a few dozen cases, does not present a 'case' that such a thing is the norm.

Weak responses at best and you didn't address my full sentences. And are you implying in your post to Jim that I have in anyway attacked you personally? Or do you consider my use of the word queer as a personal assault?

[logroller]

Maybe Disney is trying to encroach upon Cinemax's late-night market share. :coffee:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Weak responses at best and you didn't address my full sentences. And are you implying in your post to Jim that I have in anyway attacked you personally? Or do you consider my use of the word queer as a personal assault? I am gonna guess that he thought it was a personal insult... his guilt feelings surfacing no doubt.. :laugh:---:beer:--Tyr We all know what sensitive feelings the Queers have.;)

[Larrymc]

Maybe Disney is trying to encroach upon Cinemax's late-night market share. :coffee:You can bet its about money and the gay dollars or as good as anyone else, I think Walt would have passed on it, but they lost my money back when they announced they would have gay events.

[Arbo]

Weak responses at best and you didn't address my full sentences. And are you implying in your post to Jim that I have in anyway attacked you personally? Or do you consider my use of the word queer as a personal assault?

To quote another member: "you don't tell me how to respond!" :laugh:

You have either misread or are reading into what i typed if you think I said you attacked me. For the record, if one were to think they were personally attacked, it would stand to reason they would also think they were personally assaulted, so you only needed one of the two last sentences.

[logroller]

You can bet its about money and the gay dollars or as good as anyone else, I think Walt would have passed on it, but they lost my money back when they announced they would have gay events.
Hey I don't watch Disney, but not because of some personal issue other than I don't care for it. I feel the same way about CBN--nothing against Christian theology, just not my cup of tea. I don't go to Disneyland because I don't like large crowds and tourist traps. That's there's gays there is a non-issue for me. dont forget, it is billed as the happiest place in earth-- Seems to me gay goes hand in hand. But if happy is equated to overpriced food and long lines, color me unhappy.

[Marcus Aurelius]

When I first saw the thread title, I was expecting something about a new Disney show about a lesbian couple, starring some former teen stars like Jamie Lynn Spears and Elizabeth Gillies.

I am... disappointed.

[Trigg]

Even take away "queers", and lets get to the root - that the term makes someone look biased. Pretty much every member here is biased about any subject they post about, politically speaking. Of course bias is looked at differently when it's taken against a group of people or an individual. But even in sports. Imagine I degrade your favorite football team and champion my own, then we debate the teams. My degrading comments shouldn't change any rational argument I put forth. But I do concede that at times it IS best to avoid it, as MANY will in fact be dismissive of portions.

You can take this discussion and apply it to "nigger" or "nigga" as well. I don't think any group should be allowed to take "ownership" of a word, use it and abuse it, and then cry foul if someone else uses it in a manner they see as abusive. Or we can even go with less abused words as "redneck", which can be a friendly term to some, but used in an attempt to degrade another as well. Most wouldn't think too badly of me if I called another a redneck. But call just one black person a nigger... And Lord help you if it's a woman!!! LOL

P.S. - to stay more on topic, why is Disney worried about bringing forth a lesbian couple? Disney shouldn't be in the business of worrying about others sexual orientation.


Disney has an openly gay president. They have gay and lesbian day every year, it's in the spring.

Disney has been openly gay friendly for decades.

[fj1200]

P.S. - to stay more on topic, why is Disney worried about bringing forth a lesbian couple? Disney shouldn't be in the business of worrying about others sexual orientation.

The same reason as anyone else; viewers.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=662268#post662268)
P.S. - to stay more on topic, why is Disney worried about bringing forth a lesbian couple? Disney shouldn't be in the business of worrying about others sexual orientation.


The same reason as anyone else; viewers.

I think my idea would have had viewers.

[Jeff]

Disney has an openly gay president. They have gay and lesbian day every year, it's in the spring.

Disney has been openly gay friendly for decades.

Trigg your killing me, I always thought Mickey was a little funny :laugh: but I didn't want to believe it and goofy hell just his name says gay all over it

[aboutime]

I no longer hang around with Minnie. 5465

So, you can stop making fun of my voice!