Lesbian behind Disney cartoon pushing LGBT to preschoolers: ‘We’re political’

From LifeSite News:

lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-behind-disney-show-promoting-lgbt-to-preschoolers-were-political-on

Ed

Child abuse

Depicting LGBT people isn’t the same thing as “pushing LGBT”.

It depends on the context. In this context, I would say it is.

Good. Cartoons can and should reflect the world children grow up in, not some bizarro fantasy version of it that never existed

Doc McStuffins is no longer in production and there was never a lesbian themed episode. It’s about a little girl who plays doctor with her dolls and toys. Part of the theme was to encourage kids to be brave when seeing the pediatrician.

It had songs that would say “time for your check up”

And “I feel better, so much better.”

I’m not a big fan of LifeSiteNews or Breitbart, so I decided to read:

slowlyboiledfrog.com/2017/08/lifesitenews-attacks-gay-disney-producer.html

Kinda weird, but this comment caught my eye “Claire [the LifeSiteNews writer], hon, people like you create progressives among us.”

I usually take LifesiteNews with a grain (actually, a palmful) of salt but in this case there does seem to be some fire with the smoke.

Not just because there is a screenshot of two (doll) women holding (doll) babies next to each other, as there is no obvious sign the characters are meant to be partners (much like the Finding Dory “lesbian scene”). On the other hand, Wanda Sykes who voiced one of the characters apparently did interpret the two as lesbians.

Now, while I didn’t watch this particular episode, I actually used to watch Doc McStuffins as the content was 99% wholesome, yet not ridiculously saccharine the way, say, “Barney” is. However I found the concept behind McStuffinsville (Doc being magically transported to a land of toys) to be really weird and I couldn’t get into that. I guess the kids didn’t either, if the series is now off the air.

I do recall one weird episode, where Doc’s mother goes to “pick up the new baby”. Her mother does not at all appear pregnant. Doc herself then decides to go to the toy store to buy a present for the baby. The show appeared to be promoting adoption – but they never actually used the actual word “adoption”! :confused:

I also recall one about Doc, who is obviously of African descent, being harassed by a toy police car for building a toy tower too high. The police car is not technically “white” in the sense of “Caucasian”, it is actually painted both in black and white. But I’m sure many people would state “obviously the car is meant to represent a white police officer abusing his power” Later the police car issues a groveling apology to Doc. There certainly seemed to be a nod to BLM there.

So if this “lesbian” show followed the pattern it was likely in a way that would go over the heads of the main audience but might have the parents nodding knowingly. Much like many of the jokes on the Shrek franchise, or even other Disney fare (such as the reference to Kristoff liking his reindeer too much in Frozen).

However, whether a handful of odd or problematic episodes, is cause to write off an entire TV series or not, I think is not that obvious a question. Many Christians who would never want Josh Duggar baby-sitting their kids, still continue to watch the other Duggars on TV, and the show itself is usually “family-friendly”.

Of course, there were a couple serious shows about Josh’s sins that I certainly don’t find fit to be seen by little kids, but they quickly went back to the usual “chaste courtship” and “baby baby baby” stuff. And even before the scandals broke, I assume many parents wouldn’t let little kids watch the birthing episodes.

I am sure this and various other agendas are being pushed. But what may be worse is cartoons or other shows which push a sassy teenager lifestyle on young children.

This shows that they will be indoctrinated into human fantasy concepts and lifestyles. They will not be able to comprehend what is being done to them. This is wrong.

Ed

I don’t know you too well exnihilo, but the above insight has got me telling myself that perhaps I should read all of your posts. :thumbsup:

Actually it was my wife’s observation. My posts may not always reflect her keen insights.

If there’s one word that comes to mind when I think of cartoons, it is the word “realistic.” :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

:cool:

“lie site news”

Why don’t you like LifeSiteNews? As the article you linked to notes, it’s run by ultra-orthodox Catholics, (sort of like Catholic Answers, I’d guess), based on “the antiquated screeds of the Catholic church.”

.

Heh. Well, I cannot speak on behalf of Catholic Answers, but I’d imagine they’d be pretty offended at being likened to LifeSiteNews. :o

I think LifeSite News does a very good job, myself. The question may be “compared to what?” – and if there was something better I would like to know about it.

How about the Hollywood Reporter which makes the desired goal crystal clear.

hollywoodreporter.com/news/finding-dory-frozen-lgbt-characters-898354

It’s a campaign alright.

Ed

“When you look at the global market, so many of the big studios look to the international box office and there are a number of LGBT issues abroad, so they want to be careful not to be cut out of countries.”

I’ve heard that before. What nobody ever seems to say, though, is what *other *ways Islamic countries are affecting our movies?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.