{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/8/2016 8:26:35 AM
1
tinky winky was gay all he did was run around with a purse
teletubbies is a pbs kids show btw
English
-
So you're definition of gay is a male running around with a purse ? Grasp at more straws bro.
-
no; the actor who played tinky winky was OPENLY GAY and acted as such on the show with zero effort of hiding it
-
Well, judging by the fact the "sun" on the show is portrayed by an infants face, I'd say the target audience makes any form of sexual representation irrelevant, especially when the only people that can pick up on it are individuals who have hit puberty and beyond. There is zero need for any Disney animated film to include any form of sexuality that the creative mind behind it doesn't place into the story from the start
-
im not saying add sexuality to the cartoons or films; im saying LBGT interests: like a romantic relationship between two ppl of same gender---> like a princess falling in love with a princess or same deal with princes or like a guy in the story who is effeminate or a girl who is masculine in their interests---> closest disney came to that was in brave where the princess wanted free will and to be a hunter/adventurer like LBGT is not purely a sexual thing; they are people and they have other interests with LBGT the atypical personality traits and interests typically assigned or assumed on say a man or a woman are not usually that person's personality traits or interests.
-
Don't act like I don't have gay friends, I know how they are and even they think it's absurd these idiots want to have that representation in a -blam!-ing Disney animation. It's stupid and accomplishes nothing but appeasing the agenda pushers. There are plenty of amazing gay/les role models out there for teens/young adults to look up to, but children don't need that in any form or fashion in their television shows/movies. It's asinine to think they even care about any of that at the target age groups. This "movement" is purely for the adults who can't handle the creators not implanting openly gay characters in their work, as if they are required to. This is NOT for kids who will define their sexual preference later in life.
-
im not saying that; im saying no representation [b][i][u]AT ALL[/u][/i][/b] can lead to feelings of abnormality and isolation. the only reason disney does not on the surface represent LBGT interests is stemming from the fact that: 1) they are the largest media corporation on earth 2) they are regulated and censored in part by the MPAA (motion picture association of america) the MPAA will [b][i][u]NOT[/u][/i][/b] give a movie a rating if; human on robot romance or intimacy is involved females are portrayed as anything other than effeminate/stereotypical "normal" role or homosexual tendencies are advertised within the movie as acceptable/normal if the MPAA does not rate your movie; your movie will not be published by [b][u]ANY[/u][/b] of the US production companies; paramount pictures columbia tristar universal pictures time warner 20th/21st century Fox disney pictures ect.. thus your film will not have a box office or a theater cinema debut (it is regulatory law that any motion picture shown in a theater in the USA be rated by the MPAA)
-
Doesn't have to be done in movies; point and case, Legend of Korra, she's the bi-est Bi that ever did Bi in that animation series, AND ends up romantically involved with a girl in the end. Yet none are there right ? Also, that was done by Nickelodeon, who is a huge name in the US and that show got rated.
-
tv and movies are different TV is not rated by the MPAA
-
Either way, it's representation I a big scale, and the Avatar series was pretty popular and was actually more geared to its appropriate age. That series is how those types of ideologies should be incorporated.
-
right but also keep in mind nickelodeon is not disney; its been disneys rival ever since disney came out as nickelodeon was actually one of the original film industries in the USA dating back to the late 1800s and the initial introduction of film. an yet disney is the worlds largest media company not nickelodeon.
-
So because it's not Disney, it isn't appropriate representation ? I mean it doesn't HAVE to be Disney
-
no im not saying LBGT have zero interests represented in tv/movies; im saying at DISNEY there are ZERO LBGT interests represented; being the largest and most reaching media company on earth; that puts LBGT interests heavily on the back burner and does isolate them from the social norms
-
You realize that still sounds like "if it isn't Disney, it doesn't mean shit" and that's far from an appropriate way of thinking
-
Edited by DarthBrando: 5/9/2016 4:46:40 AMno im jus trying to say; if you are not the majority you are the minority. disney is the largest media company on earth; they reach the most viewers globally and hire the most people globally. within the disney community homosexuality and LBGT tendencies are not portrayed at all and essentially viewed and treated as an abnormality and are to be removed from society. which in turn has an absolutely massive negative impact on the international LBGT community.
