‘Andi Mack’ Character To Come Out As Gay: A Disney Channel First

[Daniel2]

[The homosexual propaganda is spread to isolate and bring shame to the "hateful bigots".

Have you watched "Andi Mack" before?

I finally bit the bullet and pulled it up last night and watched the first episode in the 2nd Season premiere, to which the OP refers. For those brave enough to 'expose' themselves to it, here's the coming out scene, all 1:49 of it:

https://youtu.be/eZm-Te6i4ik

I realize it's only the first episode and there will be more to come, but I have to say that it's been GREATLY mischaracterized by those outlets and individuals who are denouncing it. Yes, Cyrus, a 13-year-old boy admits to a friend (Buffy, who's a girl) that he's jealous of Andi, their mutual best friend (also a girl), because Cyrus likes the same boy (Josh) that Andi likes. He's afraid of telling anyone, and doesn't know what to do or what it all means, but he's glad he's told someone, because just the telling of it makes him feel less alone; less isolated. The episode wasn't sensationalistic nor contrived; it played as an impressively vulnerable attempt to show the conflict that is felt by many boys; it also showed an understanding friend who, when asked by the boy, "Am I weird...?" responded by saying, "You've always been weird, but you're no different." She didn't encourage him to act on it, or to go out and have unbridled sex with anyone... it was just a message of, "That's OK, I still love and accept you." That's the kind of message that our kids need to hear; that we love and accept them, regardless of their attractions to members of the same sex; that's a message I desperately needed to hear myself, when I was younger.

So many of our gay and lesbian youth today--especially in Utah--commit suicide because they feel isolated, alone, scared, and confused. They feel afraid that they will be judged and condemned for how they feel (the attractions they begin to have for members of the same sex), and in their isolation and despair, they ultimately give up hope and kill themselves. I speak not only through knowing and witnessing so many who have taken their lives; I also was once that same 13-year-old Teacher who would stand in the bathroom and berate myself in tears and despair, condemning myself for the attractions I felt for some other boys, and about which I had no context or clue on how to handle them. The act of telling someone else relieves that intense isolation, fear, and despair. I imagine the type of conversation what the LDS church meant when it said:

For some people, keeping feelings of same-sex attraction private can result in shame or a negative internal dialogue. Sharing those feelings with a trusted confidant can be liberating and healing. Some, however, wish they had waited longer or at least limited the number of people to whom they disclosed their feelings, so this decision shouldn’t be based on yielding to pressure to “come out” publicly or openly identify as gay. If you decide to disclose feelings of same-sex attraction, prayerfully consider whom you would like to tell about it and how to share this aspect of your mortal experience.

If you decide to share your experiences of feeling same-sex attraction or to openly identify as gay, you should be supported and treated with kindness and respect, both at home and in church. We all need to be patient with each other as we figure things out.

As Church members, we all have a responsibility to create a supportive and loving environment for all our brothers and sisters. Such a support network makes it much easier to live the gospel and to seek the Spirit while navigating any aspect of mortality.

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/f ... -questions

Now, I have no doubt that as the series unfolds, it will ultimately lead to Cyrus becoming more comfortable with his sexuality than Mormons would like or agree with. And I understand that most will object to his choices of embracing his sense of self as a young gay man (given the church's stance that people should avoid 'labeling themselves by their same-sex attractions'). So I guess I understand the concern and the objections to this type of programing.

But when it comes to allegations of "propaganda," the urge to "cut off" any entertainment or close down exposure to, portrayals of, or communication on topics about which one disagrees is not in the spirit of open and honest communication. The impulse to close off discussion or shield ones' self from exposure is far more in the spirit of the mindset of 'propaganda' (in the form of mind control) than being unafraid to confront issues which may challenge one's perspective, yet standing with confidence and surety that one's position won't be altered by exposure to a story that challenges one's beliefs. I'm reminded of the poem "Cherish Your Doubts":

Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth.

Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery.

A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief.

Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false.

Let no one fear the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is a testing of belief.

The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing:

For truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure.

Those that would silence doubt are filled with fear; their houses are built on shifting sands.

But those who fear not doubt, and know its use, are founded on rock.

They shall walk in the light of growing knowledge; the work of their hands shall endure.

Therefore let us not fear doubt, but let us rejoice in its help:

It is to be the wise as a staff to the blind; doubt is the attendant of truth.

[Daniel2]

I am getting really sick of seeing this at the top of the most active topics every day.

You're entirely free to avoid opening it...

[Daniel2]

Nothing in the media can ever be unbiased. Sorry, but it is a fact.

No one said otherwise. But "bias" isn't the same thing as "propaganda."

[Sirocco]

What's funny about that is that statistically, the demographic they're targeting, is the most conservative since WW2.
It's the loser millennials who are grown up this stuff is for, so they can share it on facebook and say how tolerant the world is becoming, before saying how horrible the world is.

I'm not following...

Statistically, who are you saying Disney Channel is targeting...?

Who really knows. i mean I know they want to target kids but kids don't generally care about stuff like that's its adults who do.
I mean it's all leftist miserable loons trying to shove their warped idea of the world on things.
As an adult I can avoid the whole gay tv thing if I so want, but kids aren't as versed in things they're more vulnerable to crazy people and their crazy ideas.
I used to think it was just about equality but i know that's not the case because they don't stop at one thing, they keep going, and they want to rule over people, not be their equal.

Well, WE know who Disney Channel targets, because it's stated in the article itself: "The coming-of-age series...premiered in March, becoming the top series of the year among girls (median age is 10) and #1 in its time period among all children ages six-14."

I find it ironic that you say that "kids generally don't care about stuff like that--it's the adults that do." As a young teenager in the 1980's, I recall being appalled to learn that prior to my birth, the LDS church I (thought I) knew and loved prohibited interracial couples from marrying and banned blacks (or anyone with a drop of African heritage) from holding the priesthood or participating in ANY temple ordinances. I was mortified when I learned about it and actually believed it was false anti-Mormon propaganda shared with me by my Baptist (and viciously anti-Mormon) acquaintance at school. When I discovered it was true, my parents and I had many conversations in which they tried to defend the bans and I argued against it. While it may be true that oftentimes, adults care more, sometimes, it's the rising generation that can care most about defending against the unjust (and unfounded) bias of the aging generations.

When you say, "it's all leftist miserable loons," you loose a lot of credibility. One would be hard-pressed to back up such a statement (many of those of us who tend to be more liberal in our thinking aren't 'miserable,' and I'm not sure how anyone could take the classification of 'loon' serious in any adult conversation that eschews elementary-school-aged name-calling).

Representing LGBT characters on TV IS about equality--it's called "equal representation." And while you may perceive that gay/lesbian 'boogymen' characters are everywhere on TV, that simply isn't the case. In fact, only 4.8% of characters on TV are portrayed as LGBT on TV in the 2016-2017 Season, as documented and traced by GLAAD:

Below are some of the most remarkable points GLAAD found in its research this year, download the full report now to read more.

•Of the 895 series regular characters expected to appear on broadcast scripted primetime programming in the coming year, 43 (4.8%) were identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer. This is the highest percentage of LGBTQ series regulars GLAAD has ever found. There were an additional 28 recurring LGBTQ characters.

•The number of regular LGBTQ characters counted on scripted primetime cable series increased from 84 to 92, while recurring characters decreased from 58 to 50. This is a total of 142 LGBTQ characters, regular and recurring.

•GLAAD also counted LGBTQ characters on original series that premiered on Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix. GLAAD found 45 series regulars and 20 recurring LGBTQ characters for a total of 65 characters. This is up from last year's inaugural streaming count of 59 LGBTQ characters (43 regular and 16 recurring).

•The number of regular and recurring transgender characters across all three platforms tracked has more than doubled, from seven characters last year to 16. There are three trans characters counted on broadcast, six on cable, and seven on streaming original series. Of the 16 characters, four are transgender men.

•Lesbian representation dropped dramatically on broadcast television, down 16 percentage points to 17% of all LGBTQ characters. Lesbian representation is also down on cable, to 20% from 22% reported last year.

•Bisexual representations on broadcast rose to 30%, up by ten percentage points from last year. Bisexual representations also rose on streaming series, from 20% to 26%. However, cable series have dropped in bisexual representations from 35% to 32%. Bisexual women far outnumber bisexual men on every platform. Many of these characters still fall into dangerous stereotypes about bisexual people.

•Each platform tracked (broadcast, cable, streaming) counts one character who is HIV-positive, though only broadcast television counts the character as a series regular (Oliver on ABC's How to Get Away with Murder).

•Cable and streaming platforms still need to include more racially diverse LGBTQ characters as a majority of LGBTQ regular and recurring characters on each platform (72% and 71% respectively) are counted as white. Overall racial diversity is up again with 36% (325) of 895 series regular characters on broadcast counted as people of color, which is a three-point increase from last year's report.

•While this year's report marks a record-high percentage of black series regulars on broadcast (20%), black women remain underrepresented at only 38% of all black series regular characters.

•GLAAD found a record-high percentage of series regular characters with disability on broadcast television at 1.7% of all series regulars, this is up from the 0.9% reported last year.

•This year, 44% of regular characters on primetime broadcast programming are women, which is an increase of one percentage point from last year but still greatly underrepresents women who make up 51% of the population.

Keep in mind the 4.8% figure INCLUDES transgender individuals, so 4.8% is well within the percentage of the general population that is LGBT.

Again, to put things back into perspective, "equal representation" isn't indicative of "wanting to rule over people, not be their equal." How is telling our stories through media any more some sort of power-hungry bloodlust to "rule over people" than straight people telling their stories on TV is...?

Well statistically they are far more unhappy, transgender (pre and post surgery) have suicide rates higher then any other group save severely mentally ill lie schizophrenics.
It isn't about equality anymore, these people do want to lord over others, because you can't say you don't want men in women's bathrooms or you don't want this or that being taught to your children.
It's their road or the high road.
It's never just one thing, not anymore.
Forcing a character of any sort into a show is bad writing regardless.

[Fiannan]

Nothing in the media can ever be unbiased. Sorry, but it is a fact.

No one said otherwise. But "bias" isn't the same thing as "propaganda."

By definition yes it is.

[Benjamin_LK]

. If parents are starting to realize that we shouldn't be watching all that much TV, that's a good thing.

Parents haven't realized a thing, if kids are watching less TV its because their heads are in their phones. My niece takes at least 40 pictures of herself a day, after posting all those selfies to social media she doesn't have time to watch any TV.
[/quote]

Yep. That's sounds like a better explanation.

[chase]

Are you worried that your child will become gay because they watch a show about someone becoming gay? Its a fact. There are gay people. I am not gay. I don't think any sort of TV show could have convinced me to become gay. I do, however, think that if a child struggles with discovering his or her own homosexual inclination, a show like this could actually help them to not feel alone, have confidence to talk about it, and make a healthy transition into a lifestyle that is still so anathema to some in this country. I am not gay, but if someone is, they don't need to have their lifestyle marginalized or called a sin. You are afraid of something you don't understand and so you put on parental controls and close your eyes to reality, rather than courageously accept that your worldview may incomplete and in need of adjustment or further information. It would be a shame if one of your children were homosexual and had to come to a parent like you to confide their struggle with coming out. It's about time we stop letting our silly religious dogmas get in the way of us actually being good, decent, understanding people.

[Lizzy60]

Homosexual acts, whether or not the participants are married, are SINS. Engaging in any homosexual act, no matter the circumstances, is a SIN. God has not, and will not, change His mind on this, no matter how open minded we want to think we are (as a church, etc). The closer the LDS Church and/or its members comes to accepting the gay lifestyle, the closer we all come to feeling the wrath of God. On the Church, on each of us, and I'm afraid that it's already too late for the USA.

[Fiannan]

Good families face very significant challenges in controlling the use of television and videotapes in their homes. I agree with Dr. Victor B. Cline when he said, “I am convinced by a vast amount of research that the images, fantasies, and models which we are repeatedly exposed to in advertisements, entertainment, novels, motion pictures, and other works of art can and do … affect the self-image and, later, the behavior of nearly all young people and adults too.” (Address at Tidewater Assembly on Family Life, Norfolk, Virginia.)

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... 5?lang=eng M. Russell Ballard, "The Effects of Television."

Also, maybe most people who watch such programming will not become gay themselves. Pretty sure it won't happen. Some will contemplate it though. And more importantly is the effect such programs have on pitting people against traditional moral institutions (i.e. religion). The idea is being promoted 24/7 in our society that to be against homosexuality is to be a bully and a bigot. So Mormon parents let their children watch TV and then they think about the ever-so-innocent fictional characters at the emotional level when some big, bad, mean 'ol white man gets up in General Conference and presents the LDS stance on family. This creates cognitive dissonance in the young person's mind as they have to reconcile their religious beliefs and upbringing with their empathy to an archetype characterization of homosexuality they see presented in entertainment. The problems should be pretty self-evident.

[Daniel2]

Good families face very significant challenges in controlling the use of television and videotapes in their homes. I agree with Dr. Victor B. Cline when he said, “I am convinced by a vast amount of research that the images, fantasies, and models which we are repeatedly exposed to in advertisements, entertainment, novels, motion pictures, and other works of art can and do … affect the self-image and, later, the behavior of nearly all young people and adults too.” (Address at Tidewater Assembly on Family Life, Norfolk, Virginia.)

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... 5?lang=eng M. Russell Ballard, "The Effects of Television."

Also, maybe most people who watch such programming will not become gay themselves. Pretty sure it won't happen. Some will contemplate it though. And more importantly is the effect such programs have on pitting people against traditional moral institutions (i.e. religion). The idea is being promoted 24/7 in our society that to be against homosexuality is to be a bully and a bigot. So Mormon parents let their children watch TV and then they think about the ever-so-innocent fictional characters at the emotional level when some big, bad, mean 'ol white man gets up in General Conference and presents the LDS stance on family. This creates cognitive dissonance in the young person's mind as they have to reconcile their religious beliefs and upbringing with their empathy to an archetype characterization of homosexuality they see presented in entertainment. The problems should be pretty self-evident.

I’m glad to see we agree that most people who watch programing like “Andi Mack” will not become gay themselves.

Given that research shows that sexual orientation is already fixed and immutable in early childhood (by age 5 or so, from what I’ve read) those watching a show like “Andi Mack” who contemplate seriously that they might be gay are most likely individuals who are already so-inclined/oriented… that is, they are already either bisexual or homosexual themselves.

I would suggest, however, that shows aimed at helping viewers to understanding the LGBT experience don’t necessarily “pit” anyone “against traditional moral institutions (i.e. religion).” In fact, many churches themselves are producing media aimed at fostering understanding towards more enlightened attitudes towards what it means to be LGBT—including the LDS Church’s admirable and worthy efforts to increase awareness, understanding, compassion, and kindness in both word and actions towards those who experience attractions to members of their own gender. The Church’s own website, www.mormonandgay.com is a great example of this, including video testimonials and other related media, as was its predecessor, the now defunct www.mormonsandgays.com .

As a side note: Its clear to me that many of the comments about homosexuality and same-sex relationships on this particular board aren’t reflective of the tone and substance of the approach taken or advocated by the current leadership of the LDS Church. Mormon leaders today avoid over-generalizations, insinuations, and condemnations about disease, mental health, and death within the LGBT community. Despite holding doctrines which currently don’t conceive of a place for married, committed same-sex couples in eternity, Mormonism is far more temperate and moderate in its rhetoric, which doesn’t focus on slanderous accusations and remains focused on current understanding of the doctrine of procreation as a means of God’s disapproval/inability to allow for same-sex couples.

The comments on this board, in contrast, reflect the far harsher and judgmental anti-gay rhetoric of the far more radical conservative evangelical Christian groups on the Right (i.e. Tony Perkins and The Family Research Council, Brian Brown and The National Organization for Marriage, Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, etc). In it, they often overgeneralize or misplace blame in an attempt to make homosexuality seem far more egregious than the contemporary approach by virtually all mainstream medical health care organizations. Such evangelical conservatives often lament what they call the “politicization” of said modern medical organizations, implying they have caved to political correctness instead of being guided by the findings of medical science. In their attempt to portray modern medicine as having abandoned their principles, they are willing to slander not just gays and lesbians, but all the straight professionals who support the findings of science, pitting themselves not only against gays and lesbians, but against the entire mainstream modern scientific movement, as if all have been deceived.

Again, Modern Mormon leaders have adapted their teachings as modern medical science has progressed on this issue, and have wisely, and in a far more temperate approach, focused on their doctrinal reasons, allowing them to still be “in tune” with the findings of science and not having to imply that their Faith and Science and its findings are at odds. It’s unfortunate that many members here are following the more extreme examples of non-LDS sources on how to approach LGBT issues, instead of focusing on the example of their LDS leadership.

Finnan, I believe your comment above that “The idea is being promoted 24/7 in our society that to be against homosexuality is to be a bully and a bigot,” implies (whether intentional or not) that media portrayals along the intersection of religion and LGBT issues always attempts to portray that those who have moral objections to same-gender relationships are always “bullies and bigots.” I don’t think that’s the case. I have seen many media portrayals, some from a more gay-affirming perspective, some from a more religious-affirming perspective, and some from a more neutral perspective that attempts to explore both sides, that are far more nuanced in their approach to examine the issue with sensitivity, candour, and honesty from all sides.

While I definitely respect every parent’s right to teach their children as they see fit (including suspending access to media deemed inappropriate), I personally believe that shielding one’s self and/or one’s children/teenagers from ANY/ALL portrayals of same-gender individuals may not be the best way to prepare them to live “in, but not of, the world.” Most conservative-leaning parents I know feel that it’s never a good time to teach their kids about same-sex couples; many would prefer to pretend they don’t exist at all. In so doing, they don’t prepare their kids with the appropriate responses on how to even combat the notion that children may encounter at school or in other public venues that “to hold religious beliefs that same-sex relationships are sinful” is the same thing as being “a bigot and a bully.” In fact, cutting off any/all exposure to medial portrayals of same-sex couples or individuals—even those as tame and temperate as those on a Disney Channel Show--can inadvertently play into the “bigoted” narrative, by the very definition of “bigotry”:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

I believe it IS possible to have a principled, doctrinal-based opposition to same-sex relationships based on current LDS understandings and beliefs, without being either a bully or bigot. And I believe it’s possible to exemplify such in public life, but not as many here presume it must be. I believe one can have healthy, doctrine-based conversations with kids about why we treat all people and families with dignity and respect, even if we believe their families are configured in a way that doesn’t confirm to our understanding of Heavenly Father’s plan for his children. And I believe it’s possible and even healthy to have those kinds of conversations with one’s kids, WHILE watching shows like ‘Andi Mack,’ so that when their non-LDS friends ask them about what they believe or how they feel about such shows, kids are prepared to have an un-bigoted, non-bullying response to prepare them to understand how to explain and defend their beliefs in a compassionate way.

[Fiannan]

Disney male princess?

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/disney-ca ... -princess/

[Ratbag]

Best thing anyone can do is to boycott anything of Disney.

[RocknRoll]

Do what you feel is appropriate. As for me, I’ll continue to support all things Disney.

But I do wonder, with the LDS church’s softening attitude regarding all things LGBT, would you also call for a boycott of all things LDS?

[yjacket]

Given that research shows that sexual orientation is already fixed and immutable in early childhood (by age 5 or so, from what I’ve read)

Show me b/c the research I read says differently:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/sexualityandgender

[Fiannan]

Do what you feel is appropriate. As for me, I’ll continue to support all things Disney.

But I do wonder, with the LDS church’s softening attitude regarding all things LGBT, would you also call for a boycott of all things LDS?

When the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings "I Kissed A Girl and I Liked It" then I will consider your boycott idea.

[Elizabeth]

When you thought it could not be worse... THIS:

https://www.westernjournalism.com/warne ... tyalliance

[sandman45]

The Enemy corrupts anything that is not in Zion eventually. This comes as no surprise.

Our hope at Zion was crushed way before I was born. When the saints of Utah embraced Babylon and welcomed them into this valley and became a state and let them teach our children in their public schools, installed their governor and their financial system... we are like Daniel in the Old Testament.

[sandman45]

Disney sucks. Rumors are that in the new Star Wars movies there will be a gay relationship. My dad is pissed about it and so am I.

[Fiannan]

Disney sucks. Rumors are that in the new Star Wars movies there will be a gay relationship. My dad is pissed about it and so am I.

Not sure who will be gay if they do but when I saw the latest movie I predicted the former stormtrooper and the pilot could be. We will just have to wait and see.

[Dave62]

Zero tolerance. Walk out.