More gay cartoon characters revealed!

Crazed right-wing moralists, take note: Before SpongeBob, there was Snagglepuss ... and Huckleberry Hound ... and even Popeye.

Recent events in the world of animated children's shows have caused people to question whether the cartoon industry is promoting a homosexual agenda. Allegations have been directed at SpongeBob SquarePants for participating in a pro-gay video, and at Buster the Bunny for his fraternization with a lesbian couple and their children. While some have dismissed these allegations as the rantings of ultraconservative Christians, gay cartoon characters do in fact exist, and some of them are even politically active. I recently asked some of them to share their stories.

Sitting in the living room of his well-appointed Cape Cod-style home, a cultural icon recalls his heyday with sadness and regret. "I was in constant fear of being found out," says Popeye, sipping herbal tea. "I thought once I cast Olive Oyl, everyone would know. She was so tall and lanky, with that boyish figure ..."

He trails off, shaking his head. "If you want to know the truth, I picked her because she reminded me of someone." He smiles and looks wistful. "Ensign Robert Flynn. Some of my fondest memories of the Navy revolve around him."

Popeye the Sailor Man, the animated embodiment of testosterone, lived in terror of being outed, as it would have ended his lucrative career. "Bluto threatened me with that a couple of times," he confesses. "I always wondered about him, though. He was so hypermasculine, always swaggering around like he had something to prove." He sighs and leans back against the antique sofa. "Maybe I'm just projecting, though. I did a fair amount of macho posturing myself."

First making the scene in 1929 as a bit player in a comic strip, Popeye became an immediate success. The series was finally renamed for him, and movies followed. In the '30s, Popeye's films were even more popular than Mickey Mouse's.

"Even though we were rivals, Mickey was one of the few people who were nice to me after learning I was gay," Popeye says.

"You know, people don't realize how different it was back then," he continues. "It wasn't like today, where only a few religious nuts get upset and boycott your work. My whole life would've been ruined if I'd come out. I had no choice."

Popeye stops and stares at the floor for a moment. "But still," he almost whispers, "every time I said 'I yam what I yam,' I felt like a fraud."

Reluctant to say more, Popeye tells me to check out the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Cartoon Alliance. He says the group helped him immensely when he finally decided to come out as gay after being brutally caricatured on-screen by Robin Williams.

Three days later, I'm in the parlor of a lovely San Francisco townhouse, being entertained by a self-described "proud queer, an old queen, ev-en!"

"I can't believe America didn't know," says Snagglepuss. "I mean, the cuff links, the flamboyance, the theater jargon -- plus, I'm pink, for heaven's sake!"

"I think it's terrific what SpongeBob is doing," he declares as he accepts a white wine spritzer from longtime companion Huckleberry Hound. "I've heard rumors about Squidward, too." Snagglepuss looks at his partner. "Two out and proud gays on one show, wouldn't that be fabulous?!"

The more reserved Huckleberry shakes his head. "I just wish it wasn't such a big deal. It would be nice if they'd leave his private life out of it and just allow him to be the amorphous asexual blob that he was drawn to be."

"I had a much different Hollywood experience than Puss," he continues. "The producers were looking for someone to host a show, to be a major player. They didn't care that I was gay, but this was 1959, and they didn't want any speculation about me." He sits down on the end of the chaise longue and puts his hand on Snagglepuss' leg. "They liked my look, but I sounded very effeminate."

"Luckily, he could do wonderful impressions," Snagglepuss chimes in. "They just fell in love with his Andy Griffith!" Snagglepuss grins. "Guess how we met. I was a guest on his show and then got my own segment. It was love at first sight."

"We were well known among industry players after that," Huckleberry says, looking sheepish. "I'm a homebody, but Puss always wanted to be out at all the parties."

His sociability proved fortuitous. Snagglepuss and Huckleberry soon became confidants of other prominent cartoon characters struggling with their homosexuality. And what started as an informal support group slowly morphed into a political action network.

"During the mid-'70s, the public became more aware of just how many celebrities were gay," explains Snagglepuss, turning serious. "Well, that included us, and people began speculating about cartoons the same way they did about human actors."

"The ironic thing is, they were wrong about one of the first gay icons," he adds. "There was always a lot of talk about Velma, but she's strictly hetero."

"That's true," agrees Huckleberry. "And a militant feminist. She carried around a dog-eared copy of 'The Second Sex' and refused to dumb herself down for the cameras. That's how the rumor got started."

"Even we believed it," Snagglepuss admits. "But then Daphne, who's actually bi, told me that she'd tried to get Velma to 'experiment' a couple times, but she wasn't interested. Velma's always been supportive of our cause."

"Everyone including Scooby-Doo has been supportive," he continues. "I guess once ... apparently, Fred and Shaggy both had a lot of Scooby snacks, and, well, one thing led to another ..."

"Let's just say it changed their perspectives," concludes Huckleberry. He looks at Snagglepuss. "We can leave it at that."

Asked which characters are members of the LGBT Cartoon Alliance, Snagglepuss runs off some names: Jabberjaw, Auggie Doggie, Mr. Slate of "The Flintstones," Elmer Fudd, Pepé Le Pew ("He's what's now called pan-sexual," says Snagglepuss), everyone in "Josie and the Pussycats," all three members of "The Hair Bear Bunch," several Smurfs, and Gargamel, and Foghorn Leghorn.

"That last one surprised even us," Huckleberry says. "And Bugs Bunny hasn't officially joined, but he has been to a few meetings." He divulges, "He had to dress up as a woman a lot on the show, and then found himself doing it off-screen."

Snagglepuss adds, "Of course, he could just be a straight cross-dresser, but he enjoys flirting with men. You may have noticed that he kissed a lot of male co-stars on his show, too." Huckleberry nods. "He's still trying to figure himself out."

Though both admit to some progress for gay cartoon characters, they're worried about the future. The increasing influence of the religious right and the passage of state laws banning gay marriage have Snagglepuss rallying the troops for the battles they may face in the next four years.

"I guess the most significant thing is that we've reached out to the puppet community," says Snagglepuss. "It's an important alliance. Tinky Winky weathered the storm, Bert and Ernie are still going strong after all these years, and Big Bird and Snuffleupagus just announced their engagement. Except for the hullabaloo about Buster the Bunny's human friends, PBS has been very supportive."

Huckleberry is less optimistic. "I just don't know what these next few years are going to bring. I'm concerned, very concerned." He shakes his head. "If these people knew what it used to be like for us they wouldn't force us to deny who we are. They'd have some compassion."

Snagglepuss puts his arm around the man he calls his husband. "They're only human beings," he says gently. "They just don't have the kind of depth that we do."

The media intentionally distorted Dr. Dobson’s message, claiming he criticized cartoon characters in a video. The purpose of their distortion is blatantly obvious: by claiming it is cartoon characters, rather than curriculum materials accompanying the We Are Family Foundation video, to which Dr. Dobson objects, the media has made him, and those who agree with him, fodder for jokes. And the purpose for doing so is blatantly obvious: it is nothing more than an attempt to make ineffective concerns and warnings regarding the now-pervasive pro-homosexual agenda which is, and has been, targeting school children.

As is evidenced by this thread, salon joins the ranks of others in the media who solicit the participation in continued insults and scorn against those who object to the pro-homosexual movement. After all, if hundreds of people are hoodwinked into believing the absurd lies put forth by the media, then the messenger (Dr. Dobson) becomes not only “incredible,” but laughable. And that was their objective. By labeling those who object to the pro-homosexual agenda as “crazed right-wing moralists,” those “crazed right-wing moralists” can be dismissed as ridiculous, their words become “nonsense,” and berating is encouraged. Salon knew quite well what Dr. Dobson actually said, just as surely as it knew what the media claims he said is patently false. Just because the media turned Dr. Dobsons’ concerns into a “cartoon comedy,” does not make the pro-homosexual agenda a comedy act.

There is a homosexual agenda targeting school children. There has long been homosexual activists targeting school children. The We Are Family Foundation is one of the newest participants. The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has long been a major and active partner in going after school children.

Dr. Dobson Takes on Media over 'SpongeBob' Controversy
Dr. James Dobson set the record straight today about the onslaught of media reports mocking him for comments he is alleged to have made about the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.
"I've been in the public eye for thirty-something years and I have never had my words more misrepresented than they were in this instance," Dobson said on today's installment of his internationally syndicated radio program. "I was said to be on the warpath for my dislike for SpongeBob — who supposedly has homosexual characteristics.

"I said no such thing."

What Dobson did say, in a speech last week in Washington during an event sponsored by the Family Research Council, was that SpongeBob is one of 100 popular animated characters that may have been co-opted by an innocuous-sounding group to promote acceptance of homosexuality to children. The group, the We Are Family Foundation, has produced a video slated for distribution to 61,000 public and private elementary schools; it features SpongeBob, Big Bird, Barney and others singing the old disco hit "We Are Family" and spreading a message of "diversity and unity."
And therein lies the rub — albeit well-concealed.
While words like "diversity" and "unity" sound harmless — even noble — enough, the reality is they are often used by gay activists as cover for teaching children that homosexuality is the moral and biological equivalent to heterosexuality. And there is ample evidence that the We Are Family Foundation shares — and promotes — that view.
"Unfortunately," Dobson explained, "the We Are Family foundation has very strong homosexual advocacy roots and biases."

* * *
The curriculum booklet that will accompany the "We Are Family" DVD when it is sent to schools in March, for instance, is likely to contain resources for educators seeking to normalize homosexuality. Although that guide has not yet been made public, a 2003 manual, also associated with the "We Are Family" cartoon-character video, offered several exercises for educators that equate homosexuality with immutable characteristics, such as race or gender, and suggest it deserves limitless tolerance and acceptance.

From Ed Reform's post on another thread:

The Education Establishment And The Homosexual Agenda
With an eye for the future, the battleground for gay activists is in the schools and children are the targets, a new book, The Homosexual Agenda reveals, while developments in at least one state capitol seem to bear the authors out.
Quoted in the book is a rallying point from a 1999 Gay Lesbian Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) conference:

The fear of the religious right is that the schools of today will be the governments of tomorrow. And you know, they're right. If we do our jobs right, we're going to raise a generation of kids who don't believe the claims of the religious right.
The authors of the book, Alan Sears and Craig Osten describe a phenomenon that does more than threaten religious freedom. The 'sexual orientation community' is actively working to impose their value system upon the rest of society. The chapter entitled "Stupid Parents, 'Enlightened Kids'" is of particular interest to those who are concerned about childhood indoctrination.
* * *
In The Homosexual Agenda, Sears and Osten report that the nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association, is enthusiastically developing programs to incorporate the gay agenda into public school curricula for children of all ages. Many of them are in place today and have been for some years now.
"GLSEN regularly collaborates with other national education organizations to broaden the reach of our message and materials," the lobbying groups executive director, Kevin Jennings writes in a recent fundraising letter.
"For example, last year we helped the National Education Association-the nation's largest teacher's union with 2.7 million members-pass sweeping new policies directing its members to address lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in their work."
Agendized educators are exploiting the confusion that characterizes normal adolescence, according to Craig and Osten in The Homosexual Agenda. "As bodies change and hormones rage," the authors explain, youths are told that their feelings may indicate that they are bisexual. Further, heterosexuality is portrayed as being passé, while 'alternative' sexuality is promoted as chic and more likely to result in peer acceptance.
Organizations such as the aforementioned GLSEN are targeting children for gay advocacy participation, Sears and Osten point out. The book describes A Day of Silence that GLSEN orchestrates every year, wherein students are not to speak. Instead they are to present a card explaining that they will not speak that day in support of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people....

From Ed Reform, posted on another thread:

It's 1984 in Massachusetts – And Big Brother Is Gay

"... A prominent psychiatrist says the sex-ed curricula at these schools can lower children "to the level of animals" and inflict lasting harm. "Massachusetts schools' systematic promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity fosters sexual confusion and experimentation," says Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former clinical director of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Center in New York. "They dilute and trivialize [the capacity for] faithful sexual passion which should [later] be the cement of these children's marriages. Unstable youngsters may become particularly vulnerable to homosexuals who actively recruit them."
There are teachers all over North America quietly mainstreaming homosexual behavior to children as young as 5 years old. As widely reported, on "Gay Days" classes are cancelled and students led to compulsory activities where homosexuals explain their "lifestyles..."

Here is a surprize. I agree absolutely with your position
in every way EXCEPT:

"Afterall, if hundreds of people are hoodwinked into be-
lieving the absurd lies put forth by the media, then the
messenger (Dr Dobson)becomes not only 'incredible', but
laughable."

If by "hundreds of people" you are referring to the post-
ers who were joking about cartoon characters I would bet
few, if any, of them gave a second thought to Dobson. That
doesn't mean they accept the homosexual agenda in schools.
I suspect that much of this battle is going to be fought
on the local level. Some of these same people can be mo-
bilized to act. But, it doesn't do the cause much good to
demonstrate frustration with these folks.

I also suspect that the flap over the cartoon characters
may just turn out to be a Godsend. Sure, it provided the
lefties with phony fodder. However, it also publicized
the issue making it possible to mobilize the masses.

As to Dr. Dobson, if you peruse his February letter in
family.org you will notice in the explanation of his
comments he acknowledges that he had stated that there
existed a video to be concerned about. Later, he states
that the program behind the video, and not the video,
is the problem. Looks to me like a case of another con-
servative providing a minute opening for the MSM. I don't
fault him but we all know that MSM doesn't need much to
work with when it comes to conservatives and conservatism.
One could say that Dobson should have known better but that
wouldn't be fair, IMO. The libs would like all conserva-
tives to shut-up. The wrath of the MSM is the price paid
for saying ANYTHING.

Still, I believe that there has been presented an oppor-
tunity to act. Fighting among ourselves is no way to take
advantage of that opportunity. Therefore, I would like to
apologize to anyone who I may have offended, here.

One could say that Dobson should have known better but that wouldn't be fair, IMO. The libs would like all conserva- tives to shut-up. The wrath of the MSM is the price paid for saying ANYTHING.

Still, I believe that there has been presented an oppor- tunity to act. Fighting among ourselves is no way to take advantage of that opportunity. Therefore, I would like to apologize to anyone who I may have offended, here.

As to your entire post, I agree with everything you said. As to the first paragraph above, I also agree. Dr. Dobson, knowing how the media spins, should have, perhaps, been absolutely clear, not leaving any openings for the media to take out of context, or use any portion of his unclear intent, to be a basis for fodder. That he spoke out against We Are Family Foundation, and its usage of a video (which clearly uses such videos, as proven in the past, as a MEANS to get curriculum into the hands of unscrupulous teachers as well as enticing children to their website from those materials), that I cannot fault him for at all. OTOH, as you pointed out, as well, conservatives could always be perfectly clear, and the media would still disingenously distort the facts to either damage the conservative agenda or silence them so that unsavory agendas are not exposed--which is exactly what they're trying to do here.

As to your second paragraph, yes, this CAN be a means to open people's minds to the truth. The major problem is, for whatever reason, on these kinds of issues, it seems more often than not that more people willingly swallow and believe the medias' lies rather than first react in disbelief to what they say. That willing belief in media claims does not occur, overall, when it comes to other issues, such as what occurred with the CBS/Rathergate memos. Within minutes people were doubting Rather and his claims.

As to your extending the olive branch, I accept it, gladly. Thank you. And I also apologize for any misunderstandings and heated-exchanges between ourselves. That was not my intent.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.