Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
How do you feel about LGBTQ+ characters in children’s films and TV? (Page 2)
Anonymous
(25-29) 
Ask AI
Ask to an AI Persona
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
75Opinion
It’s good to have representation, you should have a wide spectrum of all things across the show, not just LGBT+, but that is the thing that seems to be being brought in the most.
It's idiotic. There is no shortages of diferences in the world. Next thing you know they will be including zoophiles, necrophiliacs and pedophiles into cartoons.
Those are sexual kinks though, if someone is homosexual, it's just an orientation like heterosexual. That analogy is like saying showing obviously straight relationships is the first step before showing explicit porn or something
@kyatra If someone is a zoophile, he's oriented towards animals, like homosexual and heterosexual. Same thing for botano... phile, or whatever those particular deviants are called.
By your logic everything is peachy as long as they don't show the characters having sex.
Wanting to rape animals or children is different than feeling an attraction towards an adult of the same gender
@kyatra How? And what if it's not rape? I mean a dead corpse can't say no anyways, so is that also diferent?
If you think having sex with a dead body, or raping a child, is the same as having sex with a consenting adult, there's nothing I can say that will convince you your thinking is deeply flawed
@kyatra You see, if my logic was flawed it would be pretty easy to prove it. The fact that you can't means that it isn't. All you are doing is parroting what other people told you to say when this comes up.
The things you mentioned have nothing to do with human sexual orientation. Another issue is that you are conflating paraphilia that does not require consent with a sexual orientation that does require consent. Surely you're smart enough to see the error in this logic of yours.
Children, animals and dead people cannot consent to sex with an adult human. Children are mentally, psychologically and physically immature to consent. Dead people... are well... DEAD, so they can't consent. And animals most certainly cannot consent. In addition to that, animals usually only have sex for reproductive purposes, not for pleasure like us.
@Starrk How does screwing a goat has nothing to do with sexual orientation?
Consent is a legal term. Laws can be changed and legal terms can be redefined. It's like that because people want to make it like that, and that's it. In the middle ages it was law that gay people are burned at the stake. That changed didn't it?
Because a sexual orientation requires attraction toward one of the sexes/genders within the human species. A goat doesn't qualify as that unless goats are now human.
"It's like that because people want to make it like that, and that's it."
No, it's a lot more complex than that. Having sex with children used to be legal and it was very common amongst the aristocrats in Europe, but that changed when it became known that such relationships have a terrible effect on children. Children are so mentally and physically immature to were being in a sexual/romantic relationship with an adult is very damaging to their development. While laws aren't usually perfect, many are there for legitimate reasons.
There is no legitimate reason why homosexuality should be viewed as bad. And, no, a 2000-year-old book written by an invisible man in the sky with superpowers doesn't count as a legitimate reason.
@Starrk And how does that help you prove your point?
So you're saying kids aren't meant to have sex untill maturity? What about all these teenagers who already had sex with more people than i did?
I don't see how what you are saying is even remotely true. You can try to get out of it on technical reasons, but the essence of my argumentation remains untouched.
I find it funny how you ask me how does that helps prove my point when you haven't even proven yours.
"So you're saying kids aren't meant to have sex untill maturity?"
Reread my post. I never said that. I clearly said kids having sexual/romantic relationships with ADULTS.
'You can try to get out of it on technical reasons, but the essence of my argumentation remains untouched."
The essence of your argument was debunked long time ago before you were probably born. Do you think you're the first person in history to produce a slippery slope argument for why homosexuality shouldn't be accepted as normal by society? No. People have been using that tired argument for decades and their argument has always been debunked with the same answer.
Slippery slope arguments are not valid in this topic for you are comparing a normal variation of human sexual orientation with that of Paraphillia. In addition to that Homosexual relationships, just like heterosexual relationships requires the consent of both parties. The other 3 paraphilias you mentioned do not require consent.
@Starrk And again you parrot technicalities that do not address the essence of the argument.
The slippery slope argument stands. Saying that it's not valid doesn't debunk it. Homosexuality is a deviation just like zoophilia, pedophilia and necrophilia. The excuses like 'consent' is a mere legal technicality. What is the difference who are teenagers having sex with? If sex is damaging to them as you claimed, there is none. Now sure you can hold on to law in order to maintain the rest of deviations illegal, but essentially you have no other argument to keep them that way.
Humans should adopt a vegetarian diet because the acceptance of eating meat will lead to cannibalism. As humans accept pork, beef, and chicken as acceptable forms of meat to consume, they will eventually accept eating cat and dog meat which eventually leads to the acceptance of eating other humans. So, in turn, eating pork, beef and chicken will lead to eating humans. We need to go vegetarian for the good of mankind.
This example of mine is a slippery slope argument and it's just as illogical as yours.
I did address your argument. It's a slippery slope argument that is based on a false premise of "If X happens then B will happen which will cause K to happen and eventually lead to Y happening,". So the final conclusion is "X causes Y". There are two major flaws with this reasoning. One major flaw is that it assumes there are only two available choices. With the two choices being, you either accept "X will eventually cause Y" or "you don't accept X at all". This argument completely ignores the possibility of alternatives and forces you to choose between choice A (the desirable outcome) and choice B (the undesirable outcome). There's a reason why this argument is very popular with those who are into fearmongering.
Society can accept homosexuality without accepting the other. Implying that the acceptance of homosexuality will eventually lead to the eventual acceptance of pedophilia is illogical for it assumes the two are somehow on the same linear path of progression.
The second biggest flaw is that you're comparing incomparable things. Homosexuality requires consent between adults. The others do not. You can talk about how this argument is riddled in technicalities, but guess what, the argument is valid, and you have not once successfully attempted to debunk it. All you have been doing is going around in a circle producing an invalid question that does not prove your point.
Third, and this is a huge issue with the slippery slope argument. You claim that accepting homosexuality will magically lead to the acceptance of other paraphilias. So explain. Just HOW from a practical sense is the former going to lead to the latter. Don't be vague, but be specific. How does accepting homosexuality lead to the acceptance of a 45-year-old man having sex with 8-year-old?
@Starrk Okay, let's try this again.
Consent is a legal term that does not exist outside law. That is the only pillar of your argument. Law, aka your pillar, changes in time. I mentioned that the law was once to burn homosexuals at the steak. That law is no longer in force. This new law can be changed as well.
In essence the only pillar you have is eroded quite easily. If other deviants want recognition, they use the homosexuals as an example. There is no rational reason to deny them the recognition that others already got. There is only a legal reason, which can easily be changed, just like the steak burning was. You no longer have a moral reason, neither you have the protectionist reason. Nothing. Only words on paper.
Actually the pillar of argument isn't even law. It's criticizing your usage of a slippery slope argument without any evidence to support your conclusion. You still have not provided anything to prove the narrative that acceptance of X will magically lead to the acceptance of B, K, and Y". You also have continued to ignore alternatives, which is why your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.
Burning homosexuals at the steak were based on religious dogma, hatred, and intolerance. Pedophilia, Necrophilia, and Zoophilia are not based on such things. They are based on the same principles that make forcible rape illegal. Those principles are rooted in consent as well as the fact they are a detriment to society.
Homosexuality unacceptance was not based on being any rational explanation of being a detriment to society nor was it based on consent. It was based purely on religious beliefs, and since religion norms have no place in modern laws, it was far easier to expand anti-discrimination rights to include homosexuals.
"If other deviants want recognition, they use the homosexuals as an example."
And everyone will laugh at them because they have no relationship whatsoever to homosexuals. The error in that example is in the premise which ASSUMES all the other paraphilias are illegal for the same reason homosexuality was deemed unacceptable, which is wrong.
@Starrk I don't know how to make it simpler than i already have.
In law you need to prove guilt, you can not assume it. That's pretty much the essence of that the system. Therefore you need to prove that zoophile, pedophile and necrophile are raping someone/something in the first place. An animal or a dead corpse can't speak, so it can't be rape. A child is assumed to not be able to give consent, which is again a simple legal technicality as contrary to things and animals people can speak. But anyways, as far as i know that is not the base of laws that make these deviations illegal. It's the fact that they are classified as desecration/molesting.
Being burned at the stake was law. What is the reasoning behind it is irrelevant. But in your case nothing is behind that law.
This is very simple. If you still can't understand i can't help you.
An argument that is illogical is going to remain illogical no matter how much you explain or try to simplify it. The premise of your stance is wrong at the get-go.
"An animal or a dead corpse can't speak, so it can't be rape"
A person unconscious on drugs or sleeping also can't speak but that doesn't mean having sex with them is legal. Consent for sex requires awareness and being cognizant.
"A child is assumed to not be able to give consent, which is again a simple legal technicality as contrary to things and animals people can speak."
Children are developmentally immature to understand the consequences of their actions due to how the higher functioning component of the brain (especially the prefrontal cortex) develops last. This is why children do stupid shit and give you a dumb look when asked them "Why"? Another issue at play here is that there is a power dynamics between a child and an adult. Any instances of an adult having sex with a child are going to view through the lens of coercion.
"Being burned at the stake was law. What is the reasoning behind it is irrelevant. But in your case nothing is behind that law."
To be honest I have no idea why this is relevant at all. It's like you're trying to make a point by proving something completely unrelated to the original point. I know for certain this is a fallacy, but I'll let it slide.
@Starrk This opens a lot of unanswerable questions like "what is a person and when does one stop being one?" Several of these questions are philosophical ones, which is why you won't be able to prove that one answer is correct and another is not. It all depends on which is the dominant opinion. Aldo, are you suggesting that animals do not have awareness? I mean, that one is not even philosophical, it's pretty clear that they are aware.
Anyways, how is the case better if two undeveloped kids have sex? Why are there no legal penalties. Another question surfaces here. Aren't brains of homosexuals different from heterosexuals? I mean, isn't that the whole reason they aren't attracted to the opposite gender? Now why wouldn't that imply anything?
"are you suggesting that animals do not have awareness?"
Of course, they have awareness, but they are not cognizant to consent to human sexual advances. In addition, there also medical concerns at stake. There is no telling what type of sexual diseases is within animals and how it might interact with human biology.
"how is the case better if two undeveloped kids have sex?"
Simple there isn't a power dynamic at play between two 14 years olds having sex. The power dynamic only comes into play when you're dealing with an adult (who has the power) and a child (who has no power). A child is going to feel pressured and coerced to engage in sexual activity with an adult since an adult has the power and we as a society tell kids that adults are authority figures over them. This power dynamic is one reason why kids are not allowed to be interrogated by the police without a parent being present. Kids are more likely to give in to the desires of an adult simply because they are an authority figure.
"Aren't brains of homosexuals different from heterosexuals?"
Not exactly. The brains of homosexuals are similar to those in straight people of the opposite sex. A study from over a decade ago found that gay males' brain was very similar in its connections with that of heterosexual females.
It's a clear sign of wanting to finish the human race by encouraging it
Honestly it's fine. Going by what I saw in high school there are way more LGBT people than one would think because it's not just them but also their supporters.
I think it's a serious issue. They're too young to see explicit content
Totally agree. There is a law which prohibits to show such content to children
So having someone say they're gay is more explicit then mild sex scenes... which can b pg13... uh huh
@SilverRain92 you shouldn't expose kids to porn, and even the worst kind of porn is more dignified than this!
Dchrls, I believe that you replied to kittycat, not to me
Kittycat, homosexuality is not genetic thing. There are no genes which make people homosexual. So gay people were not born gays like LGBT community wants us to believe. This is the reason why my government protects children from such content
Presentation is important and if kids struggle with that why not
I think it's great! I'm not an LGBT person myself, but I'm happy its become such an accepted thing now.
It depends what age group they're intended for. I don't think kids under 7 years need to see men having sex.
It's okay. As long they don't go over board on the message it can be good. Steven Universe and Adventure Time being good examples.
Such movies and animation is illegal here, so I view it negatively
May I aske where?
Ask*
*are illegal
You can guess. Maybe you have heard the name of my country in the news for many times 😂
Ummm I don’t know
it's going too damn far-but they are trying to legalize pedophilia
See for yourself: prepareforchange. net/.../
prepareforchange.net/.../
It's very wrong to target children with sexual perversion.
just indoctrinating the youth to be more accepting of others
I don’t have a problem with it if it’s done with tact.
No problem if they are not presented in a hamfisted manner.
Disney is poison and has fully drank the kool-aid.
Pushing agendas to children is wrong.
I don't like because of gay LGBT os something that's learned
It's unnecessary.
The beginning of the end.
Don't shove this down little kid's throats.
It's wrong to force this shitty agenda upon children but that's just me. Call me what you want. After all, you did ask for my opinion.
Media is trying to normalize degeneracy.
Do u follow the Islamic faith?
@Liam_Hayden I fully agree.
I'm glad they are more inclusive now.
I personally enjoy seeing lgbt+ characters in TV.
I am against it.
Are u a Muslim?
Lmao
@Jesse0 You shouldn't laugh at this gentleman's faith.
@supercutebutt
I'm laughing because you were asking those who were against it if they were Muslim. And this guy appears to be Catholic according to his profile, I myself am a Christian and don't support it either.
@Jesse0 You religious people are all the same. You believe in superstitious BS and spend all day obsessing over irrelevant crap. Not a brain cell among you. Lmao indeed. Sux 2 b u! I'm glad I'm not a Muslim like you people.
@supercutebutt
You think homosexual relationships are real? You think they really love each other? It's lust not love.
@Jesse0 to call it lust is to lend it dignity. What it really is is one of the foulest and most vulgar ways to abuse one's body.
@Dchrls78104 Yawn.
The truth should never be suppressed.
Very unnecessary
May the lord have mercy on us all
I think it is a gay agenda.
Love it
It's terrible
Very positive.
Not okay, at all.
it’s a good presentation
that’s what happens in the real world
I don't like it. They want to brainwash us
Cringe
It's an agenda
Unrealistic
What is unrealistic?
Nowadays they ram films and TV full of characters like that even though they're nowhere near proportionally representative of the population
satanic garbage
Exactly.