Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25684889-20150822230425/@comment-26062541-20150825023340

Gilgameshkun wrote: I'm a sir.

Yes, I did think that was less insulting in my head. I had a huge headache over the weekend, and this debate has not helped. Sorry if I went overboard.

Well, I did get the impression you were suggesting my opinion was worth less than yours. Like I said, I'd never seen so much pushback from one person on this before.

But no, sexual orientations of cartoon characters and how they are treated is an important issue for how it helps shape the impressions of its most impressionable viewers. Representations in media influence how real people are treated in the real world. That's why organizations like exist to help advocate for a less demeaning, less dismissive portrayal of LGBT people in all levels of popular entertainment. It's (proverbial) serious business. Right, I skimmed, my bad.

Its cool.

And I'd say that's a good thing, do you REALLY wanna argue with someone with the same opinion as you? What's the point of an argument then?

And that's true if its explicitly stated such as in LOK or Steven Universe, but every example you've given for this show is something that are HEAVILY up to interpretation. The main reason I take issue with it is because I believe immiediately interpretting close friendship as romance can be a bad thing, not just for homosexual couples but heterosexual ones as well. Romance has KILLED the close friendship in fiction, just LOOK at television. Heck, its gotten so bad that people pay thirty bucks to go to cuddle parties to learn that phsyical intimacy does not need to lead to romance! Its totaly a thing, look it up!

And I know the irony of wanting to stop the argument and yet continuing it- BUT- I don't go out much do to unemployment and lack of travel and take conversation where I can get it- SO HERE WE ARE!