Gay characters in children's cartoons

[Jack Macaque]

Don`t you people get that this could also turn kids gay?

 

[Duskflamer]

I think it has been pretty conclusively shown that kids being bombarded with messages that being straight is good and being gay is bad does not stop them from being gay if they're gay.

So why would a message of "being straight and being gay are both good," stop a kid from being straight?

 

[JMeganSnow]

-Does the idea of including more or any gay characters in a show targeted at younger audiences bother you? Reasons for why or why not?

Not any more than having overtly sexual characters in a show targeted at younger audiences. If they want to have crushes and infatuations and similar that is age-appropriate, sure. If they want to have adult characters (many "kids" shows contain adult characters) who are gay in the same way that adult characters in those same shows are shown to be "straight" e.g. "here is my life partner" instead of "here is my wife". They don't need to be discussing the details any more than they generally discuss the details of the adults paying their taxes or going to town council meetings.

This. Though, the very thought that just because the character's gay means that it'll be inappropriately sexual is a bit offensive.

I don't recall stating at any point that a gay character would *necessarily* be inappropriately sexual. Having a young definitively gay character in a kids show (I'm talking around the age of six, here) would be inappropriately sexual, I think, because being gay is about *sexual preference*. Having a nominally "straight" six year old talking directly about their sexual preference would be inappropriate as well, not to mention unrealistic. I'm well aware that many gays were conscious of being "different" at that age, but it doesn't manifest as actual sexuality until they're older.

If, on the other hand, the show wanted to do it in an appropriate way, the way children actually do express such matters (such as girls having "a crush" on a boy, and perhaps one of the youngsters happens to have "a crush" on a member of their own gender), I would not have a problem with this. But sexualizing children well in advance of the development of the children's own sexuality in order to make some kind of political statement? No.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

I think you guys are over shooting this. Being straight is biologically normal. Should we not present that as a norm? Yes, homosexuality is a part of life, but we dont need to stuff it into entertainment for the hell of it. Especially a kid's show. If a kid is going to be gay, let them find that out for themselves instead of doing it because this character from this show is gay.

Edit: Plus, i dont want to have to explain ANYTHING about sex to my children. Keep it simple.

i agree to that reasoning. This article sounds like, the person that wrote it, feels there's some Heterophobic reaction in cartoons, but that's just paranoia.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Umm...Why do children's cartoons need to address sexuality in the first place? How can a character on a show where you can't even say the word "sex" have a sexual orientation? Do they act camp? If so, then they're not an accurate representation of a homosexual, if not, I can't see how you could even notice this.

Again, no. You see people in these shows that have those crushes? Having a character have a crush on another addresses this as natural. Also apparently in Kim Possible, one of the characters has two moms and this is not called in the show as being weird.

Well, I wouldn't know about all of that, seeing as I don't watch children's cartoons. The only youth-oriented television program I watch is Looney Toons.

Looney Toons has kissing and whatnot, but it's usually played for laughs as opposed to seriously.

 

[Kuroneko97]

I think it could work if done correctly. For example, set it in a high school, and have one major or minor characters, depending on the plot, that is known to be gay, and maybe they make a joke or two about it, but mostly don't mention it, and perhaps find ways to assist this person in finding their own love. The same kind of plot if let's say there's a guy/girl who's really shy.

It may not be a popular idea at first, but if a clever show were to very subtly weave it into the story, perhaps other shows could weave it in, maybe less subtly, until it's not too subtle, or too obvious.

I'm not. Any sex in kids shows, imo, is not okay. Sure, have a flamboyant character, but that just plays on stereotypes. I feel the same about macho men and helpless princeses. Plus, whats the big diffrence between homosexuality and hetrosexuality? The sex. So, when my future kid walks up to me and asks me why spongebob and patrick can't get married but spongebob and sandy can, what do I say? Imo, best to educate them about this seperatley.

The main difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality is NOT the sex. It's the attraction.
Hetero-Different
Homo-Same
That's the definition. Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex, Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Heterosexuals can have anal/scissor. And Heterosexuals may experiment with homosexual behavior, and vice versa. That doesn't mean sexual behavior. It may mean kissing or hugging or spending time together.

And even if you disagree, teaching children about sex is quite important. A point South Park made: If you don't teach them, you don't know where they'll learn it. Television? Videogames? Teachers with biased views on it? A pervert on the street? If you teach them the way you want them to learn, then they won't get a view of it that you won't like or don't agree with.

 

[Calbeck]

How about this instead: It is an animated show about a penguin. He was in his home, with his two dads and sibling, then he went outside and played in the snow. It was windy. he saw a fish. It was fun.

The episode is still about playing in the wind and seeing a fish. 90% of kids wouldn't even notice the difference. No plot is derailed. Exactly what is the problem with that?

1) If they aren't expected to notice the difference, what's the point of making the difference?

2) "Mommy? Why does the penguin on TV have two daddies and no mommy?" Fact is, children in a home with a mother and a father (and that's most of them) will indeed most likely notice the difference. And now you've presented them with a puzzle you haven't explained or even given a reason for existing.

I have a much better example that actually works, and it's MLP-related: there's an excellent author doing a fanfic called "Fallout Equestria". The protagonist is lesbian, and the story does a superb job of addressing her frustrations and social issues --- even in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. For the record, no, there's been no lesbian sex in the story (so far), so this is also a good example of GLBT tale-telling which isn't reliant on that.

http://www.equestriadaily.com/2011/04/story-fallout-equestria.html

You could take the same character and put her in a story that covered the same issues and concerns, and that would be appropriate. It would also be rated PG for "mature content".

And that's the issue. Addressing homosexuality, or even heterosexuality, in any sort of direct fashion, is a "mature" issue not acceptable for childrens' programming.

 

[bombadilillo]

I think you guys are over shooting this. Being straight is biologically normal. Should we not present that as a norm? Yes, homosexuality is a part of life, but we dont need to stuff it into entertainment for the hell of it. Especially a kid's show. If a kid is going to be gay, let them find that out for themselves instead of doing it because this character from this show is gay.

Edit: Plus, i dont want to have to explain ANYTHING about sex to my children. Keep it simple.

You don't need to explain anything about sex - explain about love.

Also...

Being straight is biologically normal? Um, no. Homosexuality exists all throughout nature. Homosexuality is as biologically "normal" as heterosexuality.

Please don't make such ignorant and offensive statements.

Being homosexual is not biologically normal because one homosexual cannot procreate with another homosexual, heterosexuals can (biological). On a counter statement though it is still normal for someone to be homosexual.

You sir are wrong. It has been shown that gay men generally have female realtives that bear more children. There was a whole thing about it in my physcology class. The genes that tend towards men being gay make their female relatives more fertile. Saying woman are a "carrier" of gay genes sounds bad, but its along those lines.

 

[Calbeck]

And the sexual orientations of the characters would only ever be relevant to the story if the writers so desire. Just as a female pony can go walking through a forest with a prince, she can do it equally with *another female pony* if the writer chooses. No explanation would be needed. We're not talking about singling out specific characters and labelling them straight or gay, we're portraying them simply as characters in a romantic context.

Actually, yes it does require explanation --- because most children watching the show have experience, within the bounds of their family at minimum, with the concept of romance between male and female, but not between similar sexes. This is simply because heterosexual-core families are extremely common, and homosexual-core families are extremely uncommon.

So a child watching a show where a romantic walk through the woods takes place involving two female ponies is most likely going to cock their head at the screen and not get it. Now you have to explain to them why they should get it.

What i'm trying to get at is the teaching would be better done subliminally. Not as in in-your-face PSA episodes 'providing education' by singling out the gay characters and shouting at the kids 'hey you, treat these people nicely, or bad things will happen!' but as regular episodes with a diverse range of characters all treated the same.

And I get that. But let's go with a more concrete example:

In "My Little Pony", the male dragon Spike has a crush on the female unicorn Rarity. Let's assume for the moment that Spike's actually a female dragon instead, exhibiting pretty much all the same behavior. There's no sex, but there's obvious attraction and extreme adoration.

How do you think that would play out in pitching the show to network execs? How do you think parents would react? And most importantly, how do you think children would process that relationship...as acceptable, creepy, or something in between?

 

[Pyrokinesis]

As I said, "designed for" in nature simply means "selected by evolution for." You appear to have ignored the entire rest of my post. Besides being irrelevant to any discussion of the ethics of homosexuality, there is good reason to suspect that bisexuality is often an adaptive behavior (and therefore something animals were designed for) and it is also probable that homosexuality is either adaptive in and of itself or is a side-effect of selecting for an adaptive trait. And I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "salt is all you need," but you aren't qualified to criticize textbooks. Science doesn't proceed by random guesses, unqualified intuitions, or vague pseudo-philosophical theories. You need to learn what the scientific theories are before you get to attack them.

Normally, Id take this time to go through sentence for sentence and comment on what you have replied with and inform you of my end of the thought process. But quite frankly im not going to bother this time because clearly you have your head burred so far into your beliefs that your not even going to take in a lick of what I have told you. Instead you simply swing from my words "designed for" and try to use it as a segway to get the attention off of your comments and then swing the post into your favor so you can try and make yourself sound right by going off of the intended topic argument.

Your lines of "but you aren't qualified" are nothing short of ignorant in the actual use of the word, you have taken no time or effort to know anything about me or my college time you simply assume that I am some unwashed schmoe who is beneath you and disrespect me accordingly.

Nothing I can say will change your mind or even enlighten you towards a different way of thinking so this argument is entirely pointless to continue.

So please, continue to live life with only your own perspective and intelligence since after all science and biology alike are great fields to work solo and ignore the thoughts of your peers you see beneath you.

I mean, not like penicillin was made by accident or anything.. they did it on purpose.. right?

Not like gravity wasent a crack-ball theory before it became fact... right?

Not like the seasonal flu shot is a guess of the next stem of the virus... right?

 

[fingerbang143]

I think you guys are over shooting this. Being straight is biologically normal. Should we not present that as a norm? Yes, homosexuality is a part of life, but we dont need to stuff it into entertainment for the hell of it. Especially a kid's show. If a kid is going to be gay, let them find that out for themselves instead of doing it because this character from this show is gay.

Edit: Plus, i dont want to have to explain ANYTHING about sex to my children. Keep it simple.

I agree with this *especially the edit* I wouldn't want my (fictitious) 8 year old kid seeing anything sexual, especially if it may confuse them.

 

[ho Huios tes Moiras]

First, in response to OP, I am all in favor of homosexual characters in children's programming, but I would very much appreciate it if stereotyping could be kept to a minimum; þe flamboyant, effeminate gay and butch lesbian stereotypes are annoying enough in more adult pop-culture. I realize þat some homosexuals actually are like þat, and I have noþing against þem per se (so long as þey're genuinely more comfortable in þat personality and not just imitating a stereotype), but most of þe homosexuals I know are no different from anyone else except in þeir sexual orientation, and if you want to include homosexual characters to introduce kids to þe idea þat it's not so horrible or unusual, you probably shouldn't be pushing horrible and unusual characters. Besides, þere's a whole lot of sociological implications in þe stereotypes þat would probably go right over any kid's head.

Þat said, we don't necessarily need to create new shows for kids wiþ homosexual characters; we're already importing a lot of anime, a fair amount of it for kids, and some of þat wiþ homosexual characters already built right in. At least as a first step, wouldn't it be easier just not to tax our localization teams wiþ þe necessity of removing references to homosexuality? (Cheaper, too.) My examples may be a bit outdated (I didn't watch much children's programming when I was little, and only really watched anime targeted towards a children's demographic when I was first getting into anime in general and it was what was easily available), but I'm certain þere must be potentially popular series waiting to be translated wiþ similarly well-written homosexual characters.

I know Cardcaptor Sakura has been brought up a few times, but it turns out þat searching a single þread for references is a gigantic pain, especially when it's nineteen pages long, so I'm just going to say what I wanted to say, and sorry if I'm repeating what anyone said.

Cardcaptor Sakura is a great example of homosexual þemes being brought into a show wiþout being offensive or beating you over þe head wiþ it: Some characters just happen to have feelings for someone who isn't þe opposite sex. It isn't a show about homosexual characters; quite frankly, þere are far more examples of heterosexual relationships, including several sub-plots about Sakura's classmates and þeir love interests (all heterosexual), Li Meiling's crush on Li Syaoran (þey're cousins and from an old, highly-traditional aristocratic family, so it's not þat weird), and towards þe end þe deepening romantic interest between Sakura and Syaoran is a major plot point. On þe oþer hand, some characters do demonstrate some homosexual tendencies, and it's not emphasized so much as just part of who þey are: For example, þere are strong indications þat þe relationship between Kinomoto Touya and Tsukishiro Yukito (Sakura's older broþer and his best friend, respectively) is at least potentially romantic.

Early in þe series, Syaoran has a crush on Yukito, which is a great example of
*love knows no gender
*a bisexual character whose two love interests happen to be different genders
*a boy just entering puberty not yet certain of his sexuality
*oþer
Take your pick. Or don't; it could be any combination.

Everyone's favorite example, however, is Daidouji Tomoyo, Sakura's best friend and second cousin, who is hopelessly in love wiþ Sakura þroughout þe series. Þis is actually a very complex, well-explored relationship. Tomoyo, knowing þat Sakura is as straight as a ruler, tries not to let her know; Sakura would be upset þat her friend would be unable to find love, or would be unhappy trying to accommodate Tomoyo when she herself is not gay. When some characters try to call Tomoyo out on þe subject, she claims to be happy knowing Sakura is happy, and she certainly tries to help Sakura deal wiþ her crush on Yukito (in a way þat shows she knows it's just a crush), and later wiþ Syaoran (a relationship Tomoyo takes much more seriously). On þe oþer hand, she can't help making some concessions to her own desires: She comes up wiþ cute (sometimes glamorous, sometimes raþer revealing) outfits for Sakura to wear while out a-heroing, and sometimes endangers herself getting Sakura on film, especially while she's wearing one of þose outfits.

Of course, all þree of þose relationships just disappear from þe American version: Syaoran can't even be shown looking up to Yukito because of how much he tends to blush in þeir early scenes togeþer (and þe scene where he realizes he's over Yukito no longer makes sense), Yukito and Touya are just pals (and þe scene where Touya sacrifices his powers to save Yukito no longer makes sense unless he's a saint, which does not match his characterization), and Tomoyo is just Sakura's BFF. Þe latter is particularly strange because now she just comes off as obsessive and crazy when she dresses Sakura up and films all of her adventures. Also, for some reason þis caused þe localization team to drop Sakura's and Tomoyo's familial relation as well, which causes þe episode in which Sakura meets her great-grandfaþer to lose a great deal of poignancy.

I've seen boþ versions; it took a lot of effort to edit out any and all reference to any homosexual relationships. Þese were beautifully-rendered characters of whom a major aspect was, not just changed in localization, but entirely lost. Þey subtly introduced þe concept þat it could be okay to be attracted to someone of your own gender. Heck, Syaoran's crush on Yukito didn't even have to push homosexuality, really, so much as confusing oþer feelings wiþ love; leave all þe scenes in and rewrite þe dialogue slightly, and even outright gay-haters should be satisfied when Syaoran winds up falling for Sakura instead. Instead, Geneon removed all reference, and in so doing removed þree examples of well-written, character-building plotting, as well as þree examples of homosexuality in children's media þat were boþ positive (somehow Cardcaptor Sakura manages to have good plot and conflict wiþout actually having any bad people; it's somewhat of a hallmark of CLAMP) and subtle enough to encourage anyone questioning þeir own sexuality as puberty approaches wiþout pushing anyþing on anyone, as I know some particularly paranoid parents are afraid homosexual characters in children's programs might do.

Þat's pretty much all I have to say about CCS for now, but while I'm on þe subject of anime and þe ridiculous and unnecessary lengþs to which localization companies go to remove references of homosexuality, I would also like to bring up þe likely-long-dead horse of Sailor Moon's later seasons, in which þe lesbian couple of Tenou Haruka and Kaiou Michiru are introduced. (I'm not going to get into þe even more ambiguous characters in þe fifþ season because at least þere Cloverway didn't do massive amounts of work to avoid references to ambiguous sexuality, opting instead just not to air it at all. I'm given to understand a dub of þe fifþ season was eventually released on DVD, but I haven't seen it myself.) In þe original series, þey were very much not an in-your-face couple. (Þe original anime, I should say; þe manga was more sexually explicit in many ways.) Mostly, þey were shown being a very shoujou-esque power couple: Generally, when one was present, þe oþer was nearby, and þey discussed philosophical concepts and played complementary instruments. Quite frankly, I can't find anyþing offensive about þem even if I try really hard, except maybe þat þey're a touch boring.

Now, we come to Cloverway's way of including two characters who become fairly important in season 3, and very important in season 4, wiþout making þem lesbians: Now Amara Tenoh and Michelle Kaioh are cousins. One slight problem: Þe two characters, like I said, tend to be togeþer a lot, and þey are important to a major story arc, so most of þeir scenes can't be cut out, particularly a touchingly romantic scene when they both die (temporarily)*. So... in trying to make it seem like þey weren't lesbians (because relatives can't be romantically interested in each oþer, right? Þat's just unþinkable to someone who isn't old enough yet to have pondered þeir own sexuality, right?) þey just made þem seem like lesbian cousins, which strikes me as kind of worse þan what þey were trying to avoid.

(*Huh. It turns out þe character þorn doesn't get along wiþ <spoiler> tags.)

And, of course I would be remiss to talk about homosexuality in Sailor Moon and not mention þe first season villains Kunzite (Malachite in þe dub) and Zoicite. Þis particular couple was allowed to stay togeþer, wiþ þe localization team merely rewriting þe highly-effeminate Zoicite as an actual woman. I'm ambivalent about þat particular change: On þe one hand, þey were a villain couple (and þus a negative example), and I did already speak out against þe flamboyant effeminate homosexual stereotype; on þe oþer hand, þeir relationship was supposed to be þeir positive villain trait, and Zoicite wasn't all þat flamboyant, for all he was highly effeminate, and þe stereotype does exist for a reason, so it does somewhat reflect reality, particularly wiþ þe more Fabio-like Kunzite as þe oþer half of þe relationship representing more "masculine" heterosexual men. One bit of credit I will give DiC (or DiC's fate, anyway): Unlike þe above examples, it was an easy change to implement.

Gah. Sorry, my response turned into an essay...

 

[kingpocky]

Because at this point in time, they aren't develop enough to get start seeing people, no matter the gender, attractive. Next question!

How many children don't understand the concept of love? One thing every child old enough to understand basic concepts knows is that a family is a group of people who love each other. One thing most everyone knows not too long after that is that eventually, most people will meet someone else they love, and start a new family with them. It's also understood not too long afterward that this kind of love is slightly different, that the love for this one person is different than love between a parent and child.

The fact is that childrens television shows show heterosexual romantic attraction all the time. Even if you've never heard of sex, you know the difference between "liking someone" and "like-liking someone." If you're saying that none of that should be in cartoons, and you have a problem with how current cartoons show romantic attraction to children, then at least you're consistent.

 

[Nazulu]

How do you think that would play out in pitching the show to network execs? How do you think parents would react? And most importantly, how do you think children would process that relationship...as acceptable, creepy, or something in between?

I understand where your coming from, but how much different is it when describing why people smoke? And with all the disgusting ads shown everywhere in Australia (I'm not sure about the rest of the world), how do you describe why people still do it even when they know it's bad for them?

I reckon describing the gay relationship won't be as awkward as describing where babies come from. Do you really think it would have a negative impact on a child? Or you can just spin the bullshit like they do with child birth.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Mm, yes, it's a pity that the bad posts flooding this thread exist.

Im sick to death of everyone on this thread treating everyone who doesnt agree with it "backwards" or "homophobic" or "happy to be the majority". No. It doesnt work like that. A post that doesnt agree with yours isnt a "bad post" or an "ignorant post" its an opinion, and ive seen them referenced as such a few times either way.

Take your average children's TV shows. Most are exaggerated characters, i can almost promise you only one character will be openly into the opposite sex and will be cast as such, having only a single relationship with two characters clearly shown as "that one interested in girls/boys". The rest? All blank slates. All of them. Uninvolved. Blank in terms of sexuality. Kids dont need to know about this. Teens? Better, thats more like it, by ALL MEANS include them in drake and josh, or whatever they watch now adays, when shows start to tackle real issues. A show about a personified sponge and a starfish DOESNT NEED TO DISCUSS OR EVEN SHOW SEXUALITY and to think it does is ludicrous. Teens are the target, children are too young to understand these issues and the characters are not deep enough to show anything other than poor stereotypes. You cant do it. Its like trying to explain the meaninglessness of existence to a 5 year old in a tv show. Youre going to fail. Stop forcing kids to tackle such deep issues.

Not to mention just ramming a gay person into a show with no context or explanation will just confuse kids. Like it or not the FIRST influence of a relationship will usually be heterosexual. Mummy and Daddy. See? Conflicting this simplistic view they gather of what a relationship looks like (marriage being a part of it from a childs view) is just confusing to them and doesnt actually tackle the issue of if its "ok" but more that "what am i looking at and why is this not what ive seen before?". And thats fine. Children need to learn things slow. I think from age 10 onwards we can tackle the homophobia, but until then, schoolyard crushes should be hetero unless plot related or perfectly orchestrated. Kids need to ram home the image of "mommy and daddy are what a couple looks like" until they understand the intricacies of real relationships and the meaning of sexuality so as to achieve a basic understanding of "love" to make it make sense to them. Its not perfect but its less confusing and paves the way for a greater exploration further down the line.

 

[Bags159]

There is a very distinct lack of gay characters in children?s cartoons, at least here in America there certainly is, and I think that is because being gay still carries a taboo in this part of the world.

Actually, it's that "teaching kids about sex" still carries a taboo in this part of the world, especially in programming aimed at pre-teens. You're talking about taking a G-rated cartoon and bumping its rating up to PG-13, minimal.

And yet part of the season final of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic revolves around one of the mane six chasing after "him". I'm pretty sure MLP isn't PG-13.

 

[Falconsgyre]

Normally, Id take this time to go through sentence for sentence and comment on what you have replied with and inform you of my end of the thought process. But quite frankly im not going to bother this time because clearly you have your head burred so far into your beliefs that your not even going to take in a lick of what I have told you. Instead you simply swing from my words "designed for" and try to use it as a segway to get the attention off of your comments and then swing the post into your favor so you can try and make yourself sound right by going off of the intended topic argument.

Your lines of "but you aren't qualified" are nothing short of ignorant in the actual use of the word, you have taken no time or effort to know anything about me or my college time you simply assume that I am some unwashed schmoe who is beneath you and disrespect me accordingly.

Nothing I can say will change your mind or even enlighten you towards a different way of thinking so this argument is entirely pointless to continue.

So please, continue to live life with only your own perspective and intelligence since after all science and biology alike are great fields to work solo and ignore the thoughts of your peers you see beneath you.

I mean, not like penicillin was made by accident or anything.. they did it on purpose.. right?

Not like gravity wasent a crack-ball theory before it became fact... right?

Not like the seasonal flu shot is a guess of the next stem of the virus... right?

Why the hell would I be trying to get the attention off my comments? I don't say things unless I'm pretty sure I'm right, and I would prefer people hear me. And if I'm wrong, I'd prefer it if people called me out with a specific argument because that means I'll have learned something.

My opinion of your competence is formed entirely from reading the content of your two posts. Since this is a rather small sample of your character and abilities, I could of course be entirely wrong about you. But I can say this: the way you've been talking makes you sound like you aren't qualified to discuss the biology of homosexuality in any serious manner. However, re-reading the posts, the tone of my response may not have been appropriate given the tone of the conversation up to that point. So while I won't budge on my thoughts even slightly, I will apologize for being a little mean.

And by the way, even if you think the theory of "soul influence" has merit, you should recognize that the vast majority of people will not. The burden of proof for unpopular theories lies on their proponents. Instead of pointing to examples of "things that the scientific community didn't immediately accept" as proof that your theory has merit, you should actually give arguments about why your theory has merit.

And now this is completely off-topic. So, uh, show more examples of same sex pairings in a romantic, but non-sexual, manner in children's cartoons because this will serve to legitimize homosexuality in the minds of the young and lead to far fewer problems with social acceptance of gays and lesbians.

 

[PatSilverFox]

I'm confused, I already think that rainbowdash is a good gay character :s
I'm definitely fine with it, there's probably much more manga stuff with gay characters *shrugs*

 

[tomservo4prezident]

Here's the fundamental issue with this conversation as whole: When people think "straight", they think the whole array of emotions regarding love. When they think "gay", they think "sex". It's innocuous to have a character with a straight crush, because kids can handle "they're in love". But when a character has a gay crush? THAT MEANS THEY MUST FUCK. THINK OF THE CHILDREN. With the Blueblood thing, imagine if Rarity was male. Now play the exact same arc out in your mind. Done.

(Btw, bi guy in strong support of the concept, if you couldn't tell.)