Good As You

Seriously? I'm amazed at how some people just get stupider and stupider by the day. This is a Disney conspiracy and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the original source material didn't have the parents in it? Or the basic rule of thumb with children's literature that you eliminate the parents so that the protagonist can act autonomously and make choices?

I guess, though, that if the only book these people read (or claimed to read) was the Bible, we shouldn't be too surprised at their gaping literary ignorance.

Let's also forget that in some cases, the missing parent is a key plot element. For example, if Nemo's mother and thousands of siblings hadn't tragically disappeared, it's doubtful his father would have been so overbearing and overprotective. It's that tragedy that caused Nemo to push against his father, swim away from the reef, and get tortured. Had his mother stuck around, there simply wouldn't have been a movie.

There's also the simple fact that children living in single parent households is a prominent reality, and one that children's literature and children's programming would be absolutely foolish to ignore. But then, the anti-gay crowd has never been very fond of reality, have they?

Don't panic. . . it's all on page 82 of the agenda manual.

Orphans have been protagonists in literature since they were chipping it in to stone tablets.
Yeah, it's Disney, all right. The fact that the huge majority of Disney animated movies are based on books and fairy tales - some of them really old, is just a big part of the secret agenda.

And yeah, it's a gay plot. Overlook the fact that all of these characters grow up to fall in love and marry heterosexually. Morons.

Are they suggesting that since Eisner believes that 50% of Disney's current creative staff is gay that, by inference (I guess), that 50% of that staff in the 1930's and 40's (when Bambi was being developed) were also gay.

While it may not be that big of a leap to make (because we gays do tend to be quite creative, and certainly did exist in equal numbers back then), it does inform as to the tricky (twisted) mindset that these guys operate under. They take a guestimation (at best) of an aspect of modern day culture, and apply it ubiquitously as if that aspect held throughout all of recorded history.

Not only are they ignorant of that history, but they are perfectly willing to allow that ignorance to reign supreme in their revisionist repainting of this new "history" to support their current whims. And then, to top it off, behave as if there is a rational basis for that revisionism. And, it is true that this (these) guys don't actually attempt to make the revisionist claims directly, but certainly do so by inference - exactly as the lying liars have been taught to do through aeons of discipleship. Talk about a conspiracy...

By the way: I think he got the 50% quip all wrong. On a few far-right type sites, I've found variations on this quip, which mentions a 50% figure. But it's about the number of companies supporting DP benefits, not employees. Not sure, but I think the host might be twisting this:
***
"Diller said: 'I remember discussing domestic partnership with Disney at a meeting where Michael Eisner said: We can't be out in front of an issue like this, but when it's over 50%. He was referring to the percentage of companies that offer such pollicies that would be the right frame for the Walt Disney Co. Because of the connotation that Disney is in the majority.' I said that was fair and reasonable. And when we passed that mark, there was his company saying yes.'"
http://www.weirdvideos.com/disney7.html

Good catch, JH. The limits to which these "moral" authoritarians will pervert the truth, in order to bend it to "support" their fire-breathing anti-gay agenda, is truly mind-blowing!