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

[Daniel2]

I use the words I use because they are the most correct and accurate. They are not full of hurt. That is an attribute you have chosen to give them. I do not use the language of the homosexual proponents because they are simply propaganda meant to make you feel positively about them without actually thinking about things. I also do not use the negative terms used by many anti-homosexual people because they are propaganda meant to make you feel negatively about homosexuals without actually thinking. I try to speak with clarity and exactness so that what is being conveyed can be understood.

You do not understand what constitutes a society. Societies are not built upon what you can legally do. They are built upon what you are willing not to do. Virtue, not vice. Sacrifice, not indulgence.

A good example is language. We all can swear. We all have the legal right to do it. In the past, people tended to keep this to the private sphere out of a sense of decency and propriety. Now, you can hear the f-bomb in nearly every public square. Society has degraded as a result as I outlined above. As this language becomes more common and pervasive, the net effect is a degradation in language, communication, and decency. It changes the way people think about things, and not for the better. People become less unified and connected and the community weakens as many people are forced to leave the public sphere. For those who like to swear it seems to be glorious and wonderful, but for society as a whole it is corrupted and low.

Public homosexuality is similar. You CAN do it, but you shouldn't. You have degraded normal sexuality, marriage, and families by promoting and normalizing your perversion. It has not made society better. It has made it worse. Much as modern art has helped degrade and destroy the ideals and beauty manifested in classical art, the promotion of homosexuality as a normal alternative to the classic family will have the same effect.

You speak much of civility and kindness, but this is entirely a one way street. You have been extremely uncivil and unkind in forcing your deviant lifestyle into the public sphere. Once there, you expect everyone to pretend that this hasn't happened and speak kindly to you, using only the words you recommend in the manner you dictate.

Calling homosexuality and/or homosexual relationships "a sickness" is not "the most correct and accurate" terminology, and is the antithesis of "clarity and exactness." Every major medical and psychological organization would disagree with that label, and even LDS leadership does not use that terminology in reference to homosexuality. Again, we all have freedom of speech and you're entirely free to use whatever terms you want, but it's delusional to imagine that the words you're using are "the most accurate and correct" when no other major medical or psychological organizations view it as a sickness, and even the LDS Church itself no longer uses those terms.

With all due respect, I'm astonished that you would presume to judge what I do and/or don't know about what a society is and how it's defined. How strange to make such a random judgment about someone's knowledge or lack thereof based on one post on the internet, as if that's reflective of everything I do or don't know... Rational minds can understand that there are many ways to view and discuss what "society" is and how it may be defined, depending on the facets of the issues being discussed. Societies certainly can be discussed from the vantage point of what they legally allow, as well as what it's citizens are willing to do or refrain from doing. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that the concept of "society" can only be viewed from that which you proposed.

I understand that you believe that same-sex relationships are sinful and should be avoided, and I'm not interested in trying to persuade you otherwise; you're entirely free to continue to promote your views that homosexuality is sinful. I reject the assertion that I have "degraded" "normal" sexuality, marriage, or families. Just as my family isn't defined by the actions of others, others' families aren't defined (nor degraded) based on mine. And legal recognition of my family hasn't taken anything away from other families other than their previously "privileged" status over mine; all the resources available to opposite-gender couples are still entirely available to opposite-gender couples. While you may assert that the loss of your privilege has "made society worse," that's really more a matter of perspective. After all, I imagine southern plantation owners also felt that the end of slavery 'made society worse,' too. That being said, I'd be really curious to hear specific examples of how you feel homosexuality has "worsened" society. Ironic once again that you lament that modern art has "degraded" and "destroyed" the ideals and beauty in classical art, given that most of the most beautiful "Classical" art was created either by gay artists or in societies that embraced same-sex relationships.

You accuse me of speaking of civility and kindness while being "extremely uncivil and unkind in forcing [my] lifestyle into the public square" and "expecting others to pretend [that I haven't been (allegedly) extremely uncivil and unkind]."

Please provide examples where I have been "extremely uncivil and unkind." I truly want to hear specific examples, please.

Additionally, you claim I "expect everyone to...[use] only the words you recommend in the manner you dictate." Again, this is demonstrably false. In multiple posts in this very thread, I have continually acknowledged that while I agree with LDS leaders' call for more civility and respect in dialogue on these topics, we all have freedom of speech and retain full freedoms to use whatever terms we see fit. My actions in doing so are similar to the LDS Church's requests and recommendations to the media in their media guide as to the appropriate terms the media should use when referring to the LDS Church. It's hardly unusual for us to hope that people will use our own preferred terminology to refer to ourselves, just as the Church has done here:

Style Guide — The Name of the Church

The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.

While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.

When writing about the Church, please follow these guidelines:

•In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
•Please avoid the use of "Mormon Church," "LDS Church" or the "Church of the Latter-day Saints."
•When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged.
•When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable.
•"Mormon" is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as "Mormon pioneers."
•The term "Mormonism" is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
•When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms "Mormons," "Mormon fundamentalist," "Mormon dissidents," etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other … churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."

Also see recommendations for using Mormon hashtags on social media channels.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide

[Daniel2]

I feel like you're trying to catch me in a verbal trap. Of course they are still human and capable of goodness. I believe everyone is capable of goodness because we are all children of God. Heck even Hitler loved children. And before you go off on how I just equated gays to Hitler, stop. I gave an example of something positive from someone who also created a lot of negative.
But by their fruits ye shall know them. I grew up doing theater in California. I went to prom with my gay best friend, my sibling is trans. So before you go off about how I don't know or understand - no. I have seen it intimately.
With the exception of one trans neighbor, no, they don't offer support, help, or blessings. They offer amusement. And hurt. And make demands without offering anything in return.
All humans are capable of this is well. But I can honestly say I have seen this more from my LGBTQ relationships than anywhere else.

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm honestly not trying to catch you in a verbal trap. I'm trying to make sure that the LGBT experience is being discussed in an honest, transparent, and balanced manner. Some of the previous comments have seemed to imply that there is nothing good that can come from a same-sex couple, that they only live selfish lives entirely focused on their own needs, that they contribute nothing meaningful to families or society in general, etc. And while I can certainly understand that many religions view same-sex relationships as sinful, I believe it's wrong to suggest that all gays are self-centered, selfish, hedonistic, etc. Again, I appreciate your acknowledgement that we are "still human and capable of goodness."

I, too, am a believer in the concept of "by their fruits ye shall know them," and that remains one of the guiding mantras I use as my North Star.

I'm sorry to hear that with the exception of one trans neighbor, the gay people in your life haven't offered much support, help, or blessings, and seem to offer only amusement, hurt, and demands. To better understand what you mean, what do you mean by "amusement, hurt, and demands"? What, specifically, have those involved in LGBT relationships done to you by way of "amusement, hurt, and demands"?

Shortly after I left the church, I discovered a vibrant spiritual home in a different church which was also gay-affirming. While most of the congregation was straight, the LGBT members and their families were deeply committed to improving their local communities and the world in general. I consider myself blessed to remain committed to many of the ideals around personal integrity that I learned in my youth, even as the context and application has changed as my life's spiritual journey has continued to unfold.

[Fiannan]

a) LDS General Conference and BYUTV are both broadcast over TV. The reach and effectiveness of General Conference would be impossible if it weren't for television and required 'in person, live' participation.

Nobody said television was evil. Stick to what I said. I said that the powers who dominate are an oligopoly and while there are seemingly many more choices, there are a very few choice providers. Like all technology the innovation is neither good or evil. It is how it is being employed.

b) It's entirely ironic that you're recommending I watch a televised (via YouTube) program as an attempt to refute my comment that sometimes television is more educationally-effective than real-life circumstances

One person's propaganda is another person's education. Soap operas have been employed in Latin America that present the message that later marriage and small families are best. The results have been phenomenal in reducing people's desired family size. Is that good or bad? Tell me. Also, had it not been for Hollywood and its baby sister the porn industry the moral viewpoints of the USA and western world in general would not have deteriorated as they have in recent years. Of course it is unfair to lump porn and Hollywood together in levels of evil...I guess I owe an apology to the porn industry. Nevertheless, as Orwell once said "All art is propaganda" and few Mormons, or people in general, recognize that.

[gardener4life]

I can totally see the day that LGBTQ will have additional extensions....It did just start with LG right? So next will be C for Cyborgs and robot lovers...then M or I for Muslims or Islam will be next, and then those attracted to sex with animals can have a letter which will be either F for Furries or A for animals...

So its a matter of time before it becomes LGBTQCMF or LGBTQRMA XD

[Daniel2]

I can totally see the day that LGBTQ will have additional extensions....It did just start with LG right? So next will be C for Cyborgs and robot lovers...then M or I for Muslims or Islam will be next, and then those attracted to sex with animals can have a letter which will be either F for Furries or A for animals...

So its a matter of time before it becomes LGBTQCMF or LGBTQRMA XD

While there are some who continue to add to the "Sexual Orientation Alphabet Soup," not all of us feel that's appropriate or applicable.

For example, while I often sympathize with the plight of transgender individuals, understand that there is some common ground with gays and lesbians as we're all 'sexual minorities' to a certain extent, and support many equality-related issues for our transgender brothers and sisters, trans issues aren't identical to gay/lesbian issues. Heck, I don't relate to many stereotypically gay issues (clubbing, drag, drugs, HIV, promiscuity, etc).

While I've come to accept and understand that the term "the LGBT community" is sometimes easier and more convenient to use when describing some common issues we all face, it has the unfortunate side-effect in some circles of implying some sort of 'group mind think,' almost as if being gay or lesbian implies we all have the same beliefs, values, and identities.

The truth is we simply don't. And there really isn't any such thing as "the gay lifestyle" (a term I once used as an active Latter-day Saint, and which I now find grossly inadequate and highly misleading). Just like "the straight community" is made up of people of a variety of divergent backgrounds, values, and lifestyle choices, the same is true of members of "the gay community," and even wider when referring to "the LGBT community."

I am truly astonished you would think to include "I" or "M" for followers of Islam (Muslims) in any sort of acronym referring to sexual orientation. I don't know whether to laugh as if it's a joke, be mortified that anyone would equate an alternate religion as if it's the basis of a sexual orientation, or shake my head at the ignorance the implication suggests.

As far as the implication that bestiality could ever be included in the LGBT community.... the thought is revolting. There are CLEAR differences between sexual orientation based upon gender vs. those associated with bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia (the latter two of which you didn't mention, but are all-too-often inaccurately lumped together with LGBT issues, as if there's any correlation or similarity), consent and victimization being key among them. No credible source I know (and by credible, I mean professional medical/psychological association/study) suggests any legitimate similarity between gender-based sexual orientation with any of the other alternative letters you imagine may someday be added.

D

[kittycat51]

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w- ... gbt-tweens

I always like Reverend Billy Graham. Now his son is stepping up.

Rev. Graham Warns Parents: Disney Using 'Andi Mack' Show to Promote LGBT to Tweens

Disney's popular tween series Andi Mack is introducing a homosexual storyline that is desinged "to influence the youth of today to accept and to be a part of the destructive LGBT lifestyle," said Rev. Franklin Graham, who added that parents should consider blocking the Disney channel.

In the show, which targets children ages 6 to 14, the character "Cyrus Goodman," age 13, develops a crush on another boy in the first episode of the second series that was aired on Oct. 27. This storyline promotes same-sex attraction and is designed to teach kids how to deal with the hugely controversial topic.

"Disney used to be the brand that parents could trust," said Rev. Graham in a Nov. 4 post on Facebook. "They were kind of like the ‘gold seal’ of family programming."

"But those days are long gone," he said.

"Disney is in the LGBTQ camp, and they’re wanting to use so-called family-friendly programs to influence the youth of today to accept and to be a part of the destructive LGBT lifestyle," said the evangelical leader.

"They’re introducing a gay storyline in one of their most popular programs, 'Andi Mack,' targeting 6-14 year-olds," said the reverend. "Parents BEWARE. You can control this in your home."

"You might want to consider blocking their channel," said Rev. Graham. "Let Disney know why you are upset, but also take action that will get your message across."

The pro-sodomy group GLAAD praised Disney for its action. GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis told the liberal Huffington Post, "With more and more young people coming out as LGBTQ, 'Andi Mack' is reflecting the lives and lived experiences of so many LGBTQ youth around the country."

"Disney has been a leader in LGBTQ inclusion and there are so many young people who will be excited to see Cyrus' story unfold," said Ellis.
According to the Centers fo Disease Control (CDC), "sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at a greater risk" of getting a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) than other people. "In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM.... Certain beahaviors -- such as not using condoms regularly and having anal sex -- increase STD risk."

As for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, the CDC states that 70% of all new infections each year occur in men who have sex with men, which is 44 times greater than the infection rate among non-MSM. Also, HIV "disproportionately affects young men who have sex with men (YMSM)," according to the CDC.

"In 2011, among adolescent males aged 13-19 years, approximately 93% of all diagnosed HIV infections were from male-to-male-sexual contact," reported the CDC.

[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.

[Daniel2]

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w- ... gbt-tweens

I always like Reverend Billy Graham. Now his son is stepping up.

Rev. Graham Warns Parents: Disney Using 'Andi Mack' Show to Promote LGBT to Tweens

Disney's popular tween series Andi Mack is introducing a homosexual storyline that is desinged "to influence the youth of today to accept and to be a part of the destructive LGBT lifestyle," said Rev. Franklin Graham, who added that parents should consider blocking the Disney channel.

In the show, which targets children ages 6 to 14, the character "Cyrus Goodman," age 13, develops a crush on another boy in the first episode of the second series that was aired on Oct. 27. This storyline promotes same-sex attraction and is designed to teach kids how to deal with the hugely controversial topic.

"Disney used to be the brand that parents could trust," said Rev. Graham in a Nov. 4 post on Facebook. "They were kind of like the ‘gold seal’ of family programming."

"But those days are long gone," he said.

"Disney is in the LGBTQ camp, and they’re wanting to use so-called family-friendly programs to influence the youth of today to accept and to be a part of the destructive LGBT lifestyle," said the evangelical leader.

"They’re introducing a gay storyline in one of their most popular programs, 'Andi Mack,' targeting 6-14 year-olds," said the reverend. "Parents BEWARE. You can control this in your home."

"You might want to consider blocking their channel," said Rev. Graham. "Let Disney know why you are upset, but also take action that will get your message across."

The pro-sodomy group GLAAD praised Disney for its action. GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis told the liberal Huffington Post, "With more and more young people coming out as LGBTQ, 'Andi Mack' is reflecting the lives and lived experiences of so many LGBTQ youth around the country."

"Disney has been a leader in LGBTQ inclusion and there are so many young people who will be excited to see Cyrus' story unfold," said Ellis.
According to the Centers fo Disease Control (CDC), "sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at a greater risk" of getting a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) than other people. "In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM.... Certain beahaviors -- such as not using condoms regularly and having anal sex -- increase STD risk."

As for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, the CDC states that 70% of all new infections each year occur in men who have sex with men, which is 44 times greater than the infection rate among non-MSM. Also, HIV "disproportionately affects young men who have sex with men (YMSM)," according to the CDC.

"In 2011, among adolescent males aged 13-19 years, approximately 93% of all diagnosed HIV infections were from male-to-male-sexual contact," reported the CDC.

While not surprising, it's unfortunate to see Rev. Graham making false claims about a show I'd be willing to bet he hasn't watched.

There's no indication that "Andi Mack" is going to encourage kids to support or engage in anything "destructive," and it's a tired falsehood that there's any such thing as "THE destructive LGBT Lifestyle" (of course, many religions thrive on stoking and fanning the flames of fear, so it's always been an effective way to drum up business by creating divisions from 'Those Others' and them fomenting hostility towards them).

Everything I've read about it thus far indicates the show took great pains to consult with child development professionals to ensure the content is depicted sensitively, responsibly, and in a constructive and healthy way in it's approach: "Minsky [the show's creator] and Disney Channel, to ensure the story arc is age-appropriate and respectful, consulted with child development experts and was screened to organizations including GLAAD, PFLAG, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, and Common Sense Media."

Linking the show--which doesn't sound like it will promote promiscuity in the least--to harmful and destructive sexual behaviors resulting from promiscuity regardless of gender is false and has nothing to do with healthy expressions of sexuality in responsible and committed relationships, regardless of gender.

[Daniel2]

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...?

[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.

[Fiannan]

Everything I've read about it thus far indicates the show took great pains to consult with child development professionals...

Ah yes, and what might those professionals have as an agenda?

There's no indication that "Andi Mack" is going to encourage kids to support or engage in anything "destructive,"...

And what do you define as destructive?

[Daniel2]

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...?

[Daniel2]

Everything I've read about it thus far indicates the show took great pains to consult with child development professionals...

Ah yes, and what might those professionals have as an agenda?

There's no indication that "Andi Mack" is going to encourage kids to support or engage in anything "destructive,"...

And what do you define as destructive?

Most child development professionals I am aware of have a desire to promote optimal and healthy development of children. Do you believe and have any evidence that they have any other agenda than that...?

Well, according to the dictionary, "Destructive" means "causing great and irreparable harm or damage," and it's synonyms include, "devastating, ruinous, disastrous, catastrophic, calamitous, cataclysmic." Speaking for myself, none of those definitions or synonyms could accurately be applied to the loving, mutually fulfilling, supportive, and thoughtful relationship my husband and I share with one another.

[Fiannan]

Everything I've read about it thus far indicates the show took great pains to consult with child development professionals...

Ah yes, and what might those professionals have as an agenda?

There's no indication that "Andi Mack" is going to encourage kids to support or engage in anything "destructive,"...

And what do you define as destructive?

Most child development professionals I am aware of have a desire to promote optimal and healthy development of children. Do you believe and have any evidence that they have any other agenda than that...?

Well, according to the dictionary, "Destructive" means "causing great and irreparable harm or damage," and it's synonyms include, "devastating, ruinous, disastrous, catastrophic, calamitous, cataclysmic." Speaking for myself, none of those definitions or synonyms could accurately be applied to the loving, mutually fulfilling, supportive, and thoughtful relationship my husband and I share with one another.

Okay, so you are quite comfortable with entertainment aimed at kids that normalizes homosexuality and bi-sexuality, even if it might lead to kids eventually experimenting with it, correct?

Also, entertainment has been used to cause drastic alterations in birth patters in places like Latin America; and area which is Catholic and tends to look down on birth control. So obviously social change agents have and do use entertainment to alter cultures. You good with that?

[Daniel2]

Okay, so you are quite comfortable with entertainment aimed at kids that normalizes homosexuality and bi-sexuality, even if it might lead to kids eventually experimenting with it, correct?

Also, entertainment has been used to cause drastic alterations in birth patters in places like Latin America; and area which is Catholic and tends to look down on birth control. So obviously social change agents have and do use entertainment to alter cultures. You good with that?

I'm comfortable with entertainment aimed at anyone that normalized homosexuality and bisexuality, because homosexuality IS normal for homosexuals, and bisexuality IS normal for bisexuals, and heterosexuality is normal for heterosexuals. None of any of those, individually, robs the others of any of their own inherent worth. Not enough people seem to understand that, and entertainment aimed at creating a safe place for LGBT kids to better understand themselves and make healthy and responsible choices will result in healthier life outcomes.

I'm not sure that entertainment normalizing homosexuality and bisexuality will "lead to kids eventually experimenting with" homosexuality any more or less than they're already pre-disposed to be inclined to do so. Most professional health experts, researchers, and organizations I am aware of suggest sexuality is already determined and formed by early childhood. Speaking for myself, I knew I am gay at age 5, though I didn't understand it for many years, because I didn't have the frame of reference or the appropriate context to understand what I was feeling. Shows like this will help otherwise confused and struggling kids understand who they are and that there are healthy choices they can make, instead of misguided and self-destructive choices. As a gay kid growing up in Mormonism, my ongoing exposure to heterosexuality and it's promotion at the exclusion of any homosexual behaviors never truly altered or diminished my same-gender romantic tendencies, attractions, and compatibilities. Heterosexual kids exposed to homosexuality don't become gay any more than homosexual kids exposed to heterosexuality become straight.

I'm not sure I understand your second question, but you seem to be asking if I'm OK if television impacts culture, including resulting in lowering the birth rate. I don't have a problem with that, no... People can and should be free to make their own choices, and providing additional information is a good way to make sure we educate ourselves and act with all knowledge that we can find.

[Gage]

Kids/teens today view homosexuality as normal and ok because that is what they are taught.

[Daniel2]

Kids/teens today view homosexuality as normal and ok because that is what they are taught.

And kids today who view homosexuality as an abomination and sinful do so only because that is what they are taught.

As the saying goes, no one is born a racist/misogynist/sexist/anti-Semitic/anti-Mormon/bigot--those are all learned behaviors.

[Fiannan]

Okay Daniel2, I merely wanted to establish where you were coming from.

Now here is a question, what is homosexuality? You see it is quite problematic to define. If you say it is same-sex attraction then you take in a huge percentage of the population as many men and most women have had those special feelings for a member of the same sex. Is it behavioral? Does one have to act upon it? There too it is problematic as many people might wish to act upon such desires or feelings, but for a lot of reasons they don't. I have known several hard-core conservative Mormon women who have admitted to me they would like to take a few days with a member of the same sex and see what it would be like. Every one of them said that what held them back was a combination of Church stands on the matter as well as the difficulty of finding someone they liked who would be into a holiday of experimentation.

So, what causes homosexuality in general in your opinion? If you believe that it is a complex interaction of genes then wouldn't it be like hair or skin color? I mean there are many shades of those physical characteristics than you could plot on a bell curve -- light complexion on one end and dark on the opposite end with most people being somewhere in-between. If that is the case then isn't it true that what keeps many people from experimenting with same-sex sex is the fear of how society will judge them (religion, parents, friends, etc.)? If you remove those social brakes then wouldn't that mean a significant number of people will begin to experiment, and a large portion of them might meet someone they have a strong connection to (of the same sex) and wind up creating a relationship? Essentially if we plot on the left end of the axis homosexuality at, let's day, 5% then a total acceptance in society and even celebration could maybe result in the gay point being pushed way further to the right?

Of course then there is the idea that all people have the potential of being gay. From a behavioristic approach what gets rewarded gets repeated. I knew a woman who admitted her first sexual experience was with another women. She kept the relationship up (without her mother knowing) long enough that no other relationship she would later have with men would compare. That is called either imprinting or shaping. However, I know another woman who told me she began to think of bisexuality when at 14 she saw a movie with a famous actress that featured a lesbian sex scene. Her curiosity led to more than a few relationships and a rift with many of her relatives when, in her 20s, she announced she was bisexual. So think about it, let's say some children were raised on an island where men paired off with men and women with women, except to conceive children. Do you believe the children would grow up to pair off with members of the same sex? If you do then you have to admit that exposure to entertainment that makes same-sex relationships cool will result in people who normally would never have lived as gay winding up doing so.

Of course there is the psychoanalytic viewpoint but essentially it contains a lot of the reinforcement mechanisms of behaviorism as well as the idea that society directs the libido. Throw in a confusing time period as a child and a society that encourages exploration and even instinct to reproduce, and opposite-sex imprinting, might not be enough for someone to stay heterosexual.

In any case media can have a huge effect. You think women and men both wanting to experiment with group sex just "happened?" No, people have seen it in music videos, porn and movies and that gets them to thinking. I believe that is true of any human drives.

[Daniel2]

Okay Daniel2, I merely wanted to establish where you were coming from.

Now here is a question, what is homosexuality? You see it is quite problematic to define. If you say it is same-sex attraction then you take in a huge percentage of the population as many men and most women have had those special feelings for a member of the same sex. Is it behavioral? Does one have to act upon it? There too it is problematic as many people might wish to act upon such desires or feelings, but for a lot of reasons they don't. I have known several hard-core conservative Mormon women who have admitted to me they would like to take a few days with a member of the same sex and see what it would be like. Every one of them said that what held them back was a combination of Church stands on the matter as well as the difficulty of finding someone they liked who would be into a holiday of experimentation.

So, what causes homosexuality in general in your opinion? If you believe that it is a complex interaction of genes then wouldn't it be like hair or skin color? I mean there are many shades of those physical characteristics than you could plot on a bell curve -- light complexion on one end and dark on the opposite end with most people being somewhere in-between. If that is the case then isn't it true that what keeps many people from experimenting with same-sex sex is the fear of how society will judge them (religion, parents, friends, etc.)? If you remove those social brakes then wouldn't that mean a significant number of people will begin to experiment, and a large portion of them might meet someone they have a strong connection to (of the same sex) and wind up creating a relationship? Essentially if we plot on the left end of the axis homosexuality at, let's day, 5% then a total acceptance in society and even celebration could maybe result in the gay point being pushed way further to the right?

Of course then there is the idea that all people have the potential of being gay. From a behavioristic approach what gets rewarded gets repeated. I knew a woman who admitted her first sexual experience was with another women. She kept the relationship up (without her mother knowing) long enough that no other relationship she would later have with men would compare. That is called either imprinting or shaping. However, I know another woman who told me she began to think of bisexuality when at 14 she saw a movie with a famous actress that featured a lesbian sex scene. Her curiosity led to more than a few relationships and a rift with many of her relatives when, in her 20s, she announced she was bisexual. So think about it, let's say some children were raised on an island where men paired off with men and women with women, except to conceive children. Do you believe the children would grow up to pair off with members of the same sex? If you do then you have to admit that exposure to entertainment that makes same-sex relationships cool will result in people who normally would never have lived as gay winding up doing so.

Of course there is the psychoanalytic viewpoint but essentially it contains a lot of the reinforcement mechanisms of behaviorism as well as the idea that society directs the libido. Throw in a confusing time period as a child and a society that encourages exploration and even instinct to reproduce, and opposite-sex imprinting, might not be enough for someone to stay heterosexual.

In any case media can have a huge effect. You think women and men both wanting to experiment with group sex just "happened?" No, people have seen it in music videos, porn and movies and that gets them to thinking. I believe that is true of any human drives.

"Experimenting" doesn't really alter one's innate sexual orientation; I haven't seen any peer-reviewed medical literature to suggest that it does. Are you aware of any such studies? There are numerous studies showing that even in gay-affirming societies, the percentage of the population remains fairly stable between 2-7% (several of these studies deal with primitive cultures where boys are taught and required to engage in very explicit same-sex behaviors with adult men on an ongoing, regular basis throughout puberty as a 'passage into manhood,' yet the proportion of men who grow up to be gay remains within the 2-7% population numbers; the same number of men who previously engaged in fellatio on a regular basis still grow up to be straight and remain in heterosexual marriages).

I didn't act upon any of my romantic or sexual attractions to men until I was 31 years old... However, I engaged in a number of heterosexual behaviors often and frequently for the first 30 years of my life, all while trying to deny I was gay. I never saw any same-sex couples; not in literature, media, or anything. Never saw porn, never was abused. Never kissed a guy nor had sex with any. Everything in my world--from TV, to media, to computers, to stories, to my peers, to the loving and supportive relationship between my LDS and very devoted father and equally devoted mother--all of it was heterosexual in nature. If "indoctrination" alters sexual orientation, there's NO way I could or should be gay. Yet none of that 'made' me straight one bit. I've known since I was 5---and without ANY exposure to same-sex activity or examples---that I was attracted to men, and not girls or women.

Are you saying that you believe that if viewers see gay characters in same-sex relationships on TV that more people--and a potentially increasing percentage of the population--will 'become' gay (or enter into same-sex relationships or marriages)...?

[Fiannan]

Art to turn young people more gay?

https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/11/m ... out-queer/

As for part of your comments:

"Experimenting" doesn't really alter one's innate sexual orientation; I haven't seen any peer-reviewed medical literature to suggest that it does.

I knew an LDS gal who was a bit counter-culture but quite devout. She married a non-member who eventually introduced her to threesomes. Eventually they broke up and she got together with one of the women her husband had encouraged her to get to know. I also know someone who makes it a hobby to turn straight women lesbian. She is a bit psychopathic, and has no desire to have a permanent relationship, but she brags of being successful with a half dozen formerly conservative heterosexual women.

You know, a couple of decades ago the standard liberal take on this issue was "You can't help who you fall in love with." Now they say, "You can't help being gay." While it is a complex issue I would note that there are women, and yes men, who identify as straight in same-sex relationships. Their DNA doesn't change. And while some gay say they have absolutely no desire for the opposite sex quite a few do admit they are attracted to certain types of people of different genders. So if indeed sexuality is more fluid than we care to admit, then environmental influences such as media can indeed have an impact of people's range of sex and sexuality.

[bbsion]

Kids/teens today view homosexuality as normal and ok because that is what they are taught.

And kids today who view homosexuality as an abomination and sinful do so only because that is what they are taught.

As the saying goes, no one is born a racist/misogynist/sexist/anti-Semitic/anti-Mormon/bigot--those are all learned behaviors.

Viewing homosexuality as an abomination and sinful is not a behavior. It's just knowledge of a doctrinal principal. How you treat people that are homosexual would be the behavior part of it... and yes, that part is learned. You can be anti-homosexuality and still love and be kind to the person. Believe it or not, if you are anti-homosexuality that does not automatically make you bigoted. You would have to be blind if you cannot see that MSM is trying to normalize homosexuality, and that is obviously Satan's plan.

[Daniel2]

Art to turn young people more gay?

https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/11/m ... out-queer/

As for part of your comments:

"Experimenting" doesn't really alter one's innate sexual orientation; I haven't seen any peer-reviewed medical literature to suggest that it does.

I knew an LDS gal who was a bit counter-culture but quite devout. She married a non-member who eventually introduced her to threesomes. Eventually they broke up and she got together with one of the women her husband had encouraged her to get to know. I also know someone who makes it a hobby to turn straight women lesbian. She is a bit psychopathic, and has no desire to have a permanent relationship, but she brags of being successful with a half dozen formerly conservative heterosexual women.

You know, a couple of decades ago the standard liberal take on this issue was "You can't help who you fall in love with." Now they say, "You can't help being gay." While it is a complex issue I would note that there are women, and yes men, who identify as straight in same-sex relationships. Their DNA doesn't change. And while some gay say they have absolutely no desire for the opposite sex quite a few do admit they are attracted to certain types of people of different genders. So if indeed sexuality is more fluid than we care to admit, then environmental influences such as media can indeed have an impact of people's range of sex and sexuality.

Statistically, women (like your counter-culture LDS acquaintance and the woman who tries to sleep with allegedly 'straight' women) are far more likely to be bisexual than men, though bisexuality exists among the male population, as well. And I'm aware that some gays and lesbians are attracted to the idea of sleeping with a straight member of the gender to which they're attracted... but again, sleeping with someone or having sex with a member of the gender to which you aren't innately attracted to doesn't change one's sexual orientation. I slept with a very attractive woman for 8 years and my attraction to men never changed... I usually had to result to visualizing men to whom I was attracted in order to perform.

The examples you cite are second-hand and hearsay. Most wouldn't find them to be compelling evidence that your point is valid, especially when easily understood in the context of bisexuality.

I'm curious: can you provide documented examples or credible evidence (not hearsay) of any straight men who are in same-sex relationships...? It's certainly possible they exist (after all, I was a gay man living in a straight relationship for 8 years until it proved untenable), but my circumstances and those like me were the result of a LOT of social aversion to same-sex relationships coupled with strong religious indoctrination and blinding myself from the evidence and willfully making ignorant choices. I haven't seem much social counter-pressure on straight men to pursue gay relationships.

That being said, why do you feel it matters whether or not homosexuality is the result of biology or environment? Why should it even matter? Presuming the relationship is victimless, each of us is and should be free to pursue the type of consensual relationship that we feel we are best suited for, and outside of what we may choose to disclose publically (such as our relationship status and the identity of our spouse), it's really no one else's business whom and how other consenting adults choose to marry.

Even if a growing number of people chose to marry someone of their same gender (a phenomenon that wouldn't be unexpected as same-sex relationships continue to lose the negative stigma that's been forced on them the last century in America), eventually that would level out and plateau (I would expect in the single digits, %-wise of the population). I don't see that as being problematic. According to our founding principles we are all free to pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" according to "the dictates of our own conscience," and may worship "how, where, and what [we] may".

[Benjamin_LK]

I stopped bothering with broadcast TV a long time ago. Half of it is inappropriate. Another half is pretty stupid and rude. The other part is, well, I want the kids and I to be outside and active. Obestity is a problem growing to epidemic proportions with the young nowadays.

[Benjamin_LK]

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 have generally noticed that a number of entertainment media don't seem to catch kids' attention and have an ever aging audience. Comic books' median customer age has jumped from 12 years old in 1986 to 37 years old and approaching 40 in the past 30 years, similar trends with movies and TV. If parents are starting to realize that we shouldn't be watching all that much TV, that's a good thing.

[Gage]

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



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.