Jump to content
IGNORED

Disney's LGBT Agenda "Forces" Family Trip Cancellation


ariel9

Recommended Posts

I want to know what "exclusively gay" means. Does this means its ok if a character is bisexual? Or if they are non-exclusively gay with many partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 3/16/2017 at 8:13 PM, onekidanddone said:

I was Facebook friends with a same sex couple who had a kid a little older than mine.  One of the dads would post his day; work, Jiffy Lube,dinner, grocery store, helping kid with homework and laundry.  I told him the Gay Agenda was the dullest damn thing I had ever heard.

You mean gay people are just like the rest of us living the same boring lives???!!!! They can't be like the rest of non-gay people because they are out to corrupt the world!!!

*personally, I don't tend to refer to someone by their sexual preferences like gay, not gay, hetero/homosexual, because we are all just people and someone's sexual preference is normally just a tiny part of them. Plus I just don't care. Homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, transgender, whatever, as long as it's all among consensual adults, you do you. You see, I tend to have this weird idea that what other people do, excluding harming another individual or being involved in a clearly illegal activity, is not my business and people's personal lives are their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2017 at 5:05 PM, Mercer said:

I stumbled upon this blog again while looking for different things, and actually took time to read the some of the backstory - and I'm now prepared to call BS (or at least wild exaggeration) on her whole story.

Brooke gives the impression in the first few paragraphs of her boycott post that her family ate, slept, and breathed Disney prior to the outing of Lefou. The actual posting history doesn't bear that out, though.

She posted about their first trip to Disney in December 2016. Since the boycott post was in March 2017 - making the two posts about three months apart - and they aren't local, it's unlikely that they went in the meantime, meaning she canceled what would have been only their second trip. Not exactly the Disney diehards she implied, or a family tradition the kids would have counted on. To be fair, she does mention this in her boycott post, but it gets a little lost in all the drama about how much they love it and how sad the kids will be.

The post about their first Disney trip was decidedly lukewarm. They had a good time, but per Brooke, "Even though it was fun, Disney World doesn’t get my first vote for vacay." Then she spends most of the post complaining about aspects she didn't like, while only occasionally bringing up things she did.

http://www.thismodestmom.com/our-first-trip-to-disney-world/

I did a search for the word "Disney." It's not so much as mentioned even once between the post about their trip and the post about boycotting. There are a few posts about planning their first trip (nothing about planning a possible return trip as far as I could see,) but the majority of writing that included the word "Disney" was about her intention to boycott and the subsequent internet blowback.

So all this to say... I think she was majorly playing up her interest in Disney to make her "boycott" seem more meaningful than it is. I don't think they were ever bigger fans of Disney than the average person, but she exaggerated for attention and page views. That makes me suspicious of the whole thing - whether they even had a serious intention of going, and why they would have conveniently planned to blow $6,000 at a destination that "doesn't get my first vote for vacay" at the exact moment she could create some fake controversy with it.

I think it really comes down to the fact that this is a monetized blog, pure and simple, and she grabbed onto an issue she thought would make waves - which it did.

I read through that post, and entitled (non-Disney) princess is what comes to mind. She bitches about the lines, claiming they visited during the "off-season", like there should automatically be no lines or waits whatsoever. Then she insults anyone who has ever said Disney is expensive, saying she could teach them a thing or two. She lost me when whining about how difficult it was to deal with the 20 minute commute each way, as after all she has two small children and it's hard to keep them awake at the end of a long day at Disney, not to mention the pain it was to wake up 20 minutes earlier each day because of the commute. Yet she talks about what a great deal they got by staying off Disney property. It's called give and take.

As someone said above, this woman has clearly never had a real problem in her life. I totally agree. Between the gay agenda at Disney and having to commute 20 minutes each way to Disney, I have to wonder if she'd know a real problem if it came up and bit her on the ass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

While it’s really fun all of us being together, we only had one vehicle and we stayed off resort, so there was no splitting. On the last few days we were there, the kids ended up getting a virus and we didn’t go into the park, which means everyone had to stay back. Christopher also went to church Sunday morning, and we were all starving by the time he got back later that afternoon.

This whole paragraph from the Disney post baffles me with its lack of resourcefulness.

Why did everyone have to stay back because there was only one car and the kids were sick? Presumably the sick children weren't going to be going anywhere anyway, so why couldn't the people who were not responsible for the children's care take the vehicle and go to the park? In the unlikely event those who stayed back needed to go somewhere, there are taxis and buses - so why did everyone have to sit around and have no one use the vehicle just because they couldn't all use it? If they could afford a multi-day Orlando theme park vacation, I'm sure they could manage to come up with cab fare if a real emergency arose.

I'm also not clear on why she thought the best solution to Christopher going to church was for everyone to go hungry till he got back. Couldn't the rest of them go ahead and eat? I'm sure Christopher could manage to feed himself once he returned. If she was absolutely determined that they all must eat lunch together or else, couldn't she at least feed the kids a snack so they weren't totally famished when he got back? Isn't one of the major selling points of staying in a condo that you have a kitchen available and can prepare food a needed? (It seems to be possibly a passive-aggressive move toward Christopher, actually: "Look how much you inconvenienced everyone! Look at how you made the children suffer!")

Based on these posts, Brooke seems to have a very difficult time being solution-focused, so it's kind of ironic that she's setting herself up as a parenting/lifestyle expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a bucketload to say about this but here's this: it took until HTGAWM, Grey's, Good Wife, etc, had a gay character for you to stop watching? What about the actual commandments that were broken on those shows, like lying, murder, adultery, and more?

Lands, lady, hypocritical much?

Also, it's probably a good thing she's staying away from Orlando. She's probably unaware that the city remains covered in One Love, #OrlandoUnited banners. We have rainbows and murals everywhere. We are currently in planning mode- and have been since December- for the 1 year anniversary of the Pulse tragedy. So good riddance, lady. Stay the fuck away. While I'd love for your kids to understand that our city is beautiful and strong and loving, we don't need you here while we're still healing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Mercer said:

This whole paragraph from the Disney post baffles me with its lack of resourcefulness.

Why did everyone have to stay back because there was only one car and the kids were sick? Presumably the sick children weren't going to be going anywhere anyway, so why couldn't the people who were not responsible for the children's care take the vehicle and go to the park? In the unlikely event those who stayed back needed to go somewhere, there are taxis and buses - so why did everyone have to sit around and have no one use the vehicle just because they couldn't all use it? If they could afford a multi-day Orlando theme park vacation, I'm sure they could manage to come up with cab fare if a real emergency arose.

I'm also not clear on why she thought the best solution to Christopher going to church was for everyone to go hungry till he got back. Couldn't the rest of them go ahead and eat? I'm sure Christopher could manage to feed himself once he returned. If she was absolutely determined that they all must eat lunch together or else, couldn't she at least feed the kids a snack so they weren't totally famished when he got back? Isn't one of the major selling points of staying in a condo that you have a kitchen available and can prepare food a needed? (It seems to be possibly a passive-aggressive move toward Christopher, actually: "Look how much you inconvenienced everyone! Look at how you made the children suffer!")

Based on these posts, Brooke seems to have a very difficult time being solution-focused, so it's kind of ironic that she's setting herself up as a parenting/lifestyle expert.

I was confused about that too. They don't seem able to function in smaller units within a group, except for pious Christopher who went to church alone on Sunday. Between Uber, Lyft, cabs and shuttle bus services that no doubt exist between the theme parks and "resort communities" independent of Disney, it's a no brainer. Brooke couldn't probably think her way out of a paper bag unless she could whine about it later in her precious blog. As I often like to say about these people,

FB_IMG_1493181264487.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.