I felt like my response was too long for a comment, so I thought an extra post was useful. Here are my four main thoughts on the matter, in no particular order:
1: THE EVIDENCE IS UNCONVINCING
The three biggest pieces of evidence given are: (1) Elsa is "born cursed" and eventually is true to herself; (2) Oaken (a male) refers to his family and there is another seemingly adult male in the shot; and (3) after the credits, a deep-voiced snow monster puts on a tiara.
Let's take them one at a time:
(1) As I argued in my post, the entire point of the story is that Elsa was trying to control her curse through willpower, and only after understanding and experiencing sacrificial love was she able to redeem her curse. To consider this about homosexuality is the thinnest of connections. For example, look at the lyrics of the song Let it Go, most of which is nonsense in the gay-themed reading but makes complete sense in the "willpower fails" reading. In fact, Elsa's entire approach is to flee civilization and be, as she says, "Alone but free." If "Let it Go" is Disney's pro-gay message, then apparently they expect homosexuals to separate themselves from society and--even from a distance--they can still accidentally harm society (as Elsa continued to harm Arrondale). Let's also not forget that Elsa's curse actually harmed society until someone else chose to die for her...not exactly the message you want to send in a pro-gay lobby.
(2) Is Oaken's family shown as a gay lover and their children? This allegedly occurs during a blink-and-you'll-miss-it joke where Oaken says that his family is in the sauna and it briefly shows the following photo:
The implication being that the man was Oaken's lover and the other four were their adopted children. I did not see it that way at all--nor did my wife, or our other two kids, on three viewings. Until someone raised this it never occurred to me. Why? What did I see?
Well, Oaken looks like this:
As you can see, he looks considerably older than the male in the photo. The male looks to be an older teen like most of the characters in the movie, while Oaken looks more like his mid-forties. Meanwhile, I assumed the woman on the right of the sauna photo was not just an older child, but his wife.
Frankly she looks a lot like Elastigirl from the Incredibles, certainly drawn to be older than the others. I assumed the older son was blond like Oaken, and the other kids were brown-haired like their mother. (And again...if Disney is using this as their pro-gay agenda, I think having a much older man and a very young man as the couple is a questionable way to go about engendering sympathy, as it would play into all kinds of predator stereotypes!)
At best, this is ambiguous.
If they had made one of the children black, or Indian, or something which clearly indicated them as adopted that would be one thing. But there is nothing in the photo so clear. And unlike the author above, who indicates that the framing somehow implies prominence to the relationship of the older son...I say hogwash. (I don't, really. I don't use the term 'hogwash.' But it seems appropriate.) The joke of the scene is that Oaken is trying to sell things to the two visitors and offers them an uncomfortably tight sauna crowded with his family.
(3) The monster wears a tiara. Yeah, clearly gay, right? Because the movies have never played up the masculine/feminine differences for jokes before. Need I point out that long before gay marriage became a big thing, the big burly man wearing a dress/jewelry/liking to cook/etc has been played for laughs a thousand times? Bosom Buddies, anyone?
2: THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF CONFIRMATION BIAS
As I discussed at length here, confirmation bias is the tendency of our brains to give extra weight to evidence which confirms our pre-held beliefs. In the comments to my Frozen post, one commenter said, "You don't seem to understand what Disney has been attempting to do for many years if you don't see the gay agenda here."
Ah, there it is, no? The commenter already believes Disney has a gay agenda, and then sees it when looking at the movie and discounts my arguments to the opposite. This is confirmation bias: she excessively weights the arguments which agree with her, and downgrading/ignoring the arguments which disagree. This is why conservatives tend to watch Fox and liberals watch MSNBC--we like to hear people who agree with us much more than those who disagree. It's human nature.
And so it is no surprise that the article I linked to before--by someone who already sees a pro-gay agenda in Madagascar and Happy Feet and others--also finds one in this movie. Indeed, I would venture to say that it is likely they could find one in any Disney movie if they put their minds to it.
3. IF THIS IS DISNEY'S PRO-GAY AGENDA, THEY ARE TERRIBLE AT IT
We live in a world where the sin of homosexuality is so widely accepted that it is on TV, in movies, and legal in half the country. You don't have to exactly be subtle about it any more. If me and my wife--both of whom are intelligent, conservative Christians--can watch a movie three times and not see the agenda, then Disney sucks at agendas.
Seriously. If they were sitting around thinking, "Hey, how can we corrupt the youth and make them think gay marriage is okay?," and this is what they came up with...then EPIC FAIL, Disney. I can guarantee you my kids didn't get that from it, nor did I.
4. EVERYONE JUST RELAX, ALREADY
Remember like 15 years ago when Christianity lost its mind over the Harry Potter books, and now almost every Christian child has read them? Ever read some of the articles from another 15 years before that, when Christians were up in arms over Star Wars, and now we use the movies as sermon examples? Back about 25 years before that, some states banned Charlotte's Web based on the argument that talking animals were clearly the work of the devil. Those seem silly now?
Here's the thing--we Christians LOVE us some culture wars. We love to get irate about what "those guys" are doing to us and "our" society. We love to rant and rave about how America is going to hell in a handbasket, and it is all because of some godless commies/gays/atheists pick your enemy of the day.
And so we love to get irate about whatever the popular entertainment du jour is, and how it is ruining America. Today it's Frozen, and 50 years from now that will seem as strange to my grandkids as the Charlotte's Web thing seems to me.
So everyone just chill out a little bit, breathe deep, and ask yourself if this is really a movie whose themes are so gay that they're worth getting worked up over.