Thread:Gilgameshkun/@comment-6028837-20141031023809/@comment-995426-20141031151447

So, even though it wasn't really about sex... The same-gender love was what you considered inappropriate? That's inappropriate for children to see or hear about? Is that what you're saying? I can understand keeping explicit sexual content away from children. But guys who love other guys? That's inappropriate?

I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, because...there ultimately may be a problem if that's the case, this being the United States in 2014 and all. You see, it's one thing to dispute whether a character is LGBT&mdash;that simply is what it is or isn't what it isn't. But it's another thing entirely to say we can't even consider or discuss the issue because it's deemed patently inappropriate in the presence of children. We know that's not true, or TeenNick wouldn't be chock full of LGBT teenage characters and airing so many ads for the Trevor Project for LGBT youth. It's more important than ever these days to not give children the idea that LGBT people and relationships are something bad, forbidden or dirty&mdash;at least, any more so in equivalent context than straight people and relationships.

As for it being speculative, I only decided to make this edit after I was certain it couldn't objectively be considered speculative. The definition of romantic friendship is pretty clear, and the fundamentally necessary components of it were strongly reinforced in the show. The strong impulsive emotion, the massages, the cuddling, the sleeping together. was anvilicious about it, as if to scream to the audience, "Michelangelo loves Leatherhead". It wasn't at all subtle.

However, I can see how it is important to arrive at a proper consensus that it objectively is what it is. Would it be appropriate to have a discussion page on this, present the referenced facts and evidence, and gather a mature consensus in finding of fact? That's usually how it's done on Wikipedia.