Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Gay kiss in the buzz light year movie


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Though I may agree with you on this one instance, not acknowledging the broader political context behind 'the kiss' seems to miss an important difference. Though my younger children (I don't have young children anymore!) might not be aware of this broader context, I am. Disney (or whomever) may well be pushing a new narrative for which this is only the beginning. Why would anyone think otherwise? 

I think Disney as well as other companies are pushing a new narrative.  The fact that yes, gay people are part of our society and yes, they do fall in love with each other.  And just like any other minority (racial, religious, ethnic etc) we all deserve to be a part of the public square.  

I was just watching a program on early civil rights.  The parallels are quite consistent.  The BIG opposition to integration marriage rights and equal opportunity, came from those that thought mixing races was immoral, against the teachings of the Bible and contrary to Gods will.  I think corporations like Disney are doing their part to be inclusive and correct the discrimination and erasing of past generations towards the LGBT community.  

I not only acknowlege the proper context, I believe it is something that all should be willing to support.  And I don't think it is political.  The majority of both parties support gay marriage.  If anything, it is religious opposition similar to the same kind of religious opposition there was to discrimination of blacks and inter racial weddings.  50 years later, the Church is still trying to explain why they had policies against those once fought over issues.  

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Obehave said:

I mentioned children and was speaking in that context.  Although you may disagree I believe same sex sexual relationships can NEVER produce any children, and by that I mean from only those same sex people in those relationships.

True evil is a counterfeit version of what is truly good, and while there are people who like what is evil and will call evil good, because they like that version of evil, what is truly evil remains truly evil regardless of some people calling it good.

So anytime you see someone call something evil, try to understand why they think that is not a good thing.  You may think what they call evil is instead really good, and then you would be at an impasse while disagreeing on what is good and evil..

The distinction is between what type of sexual relationship can possibly produce children, and what type of sexual relationship can't.  Same sex sexual relationships can NEVER produce any children while opposite sex sexual relationships very possibly could.  If not in mortality then in immortality.

Only gay people can not produce any children of their own when in strictly same sex sexual relationships.  Opposite sex couples can possibly do it because all it takes is both a male and a female.  Try to be more reasonable and less obstinate.

My brother got two wonderful children in the EXACT same evil way as a gay couple.  They adopted.  Their families were created in the exact same way.  Your position shifts depending on your prejudice, nothing more.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think Disney as well as other companies are pushing a new narrative.  The fact that yes, gay people are part of our society and yes, they do fall in love with each other.  And just like any other minority (racial, religious, ethnic etc) we all deserve to be a part of the public square.  

I was just watching a program on early civil rights.  The parallels are quite consistent.  The BIG opposition to integration marriage rights and equal opportunity, came from those that thought mixing races was immoral, against the teachings of the Bible and contrary to Gods will.  I think corporations like Disney are doing their part to be inclusive and correct the discrimination and erasing of past generations towards the LGBT community.  

I not only acknowlege the proper context, I believe it is something that all should be willing to support.  And I don't think it is political.  The majority of both parties support gay marriage.  If anything, it is religious opposition similar to the same kind of religious opposition there was to discrimination of blacks and inter racial weddings.  50 years later, the Church is still trying to explain why they had policies against those once fought over issues.  

 

(Not written to CB in particular)

It is worth noting that virtually no one in the LGBTQ community with any grasp of why and how things happen thinks this is a bold moral stance taken by Disney. Just like they aren’t really impressed by all the other corporations that have come out in favor of LGBTQ rights. They are corporations. There are rare exceptions but when they express support for something they are doing it because they think it is good publicity and will help them gain or retain more customers than they lose. Disney is doing this because they think it will increase profits. With the amount of marketing data they collect they are also likely to be correct.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Wonder no more.  I am not Ahab.  Seems like he (or she) must have been a nice person though if he (or she) was anything like me.

Yes, Ahab is a nice guy. He is also stubborn. And he has a bit of an off kilter view of the world that got him into trouble with board rules time to time coupled with him  seeming to think he has the right to say what he wants where he wants, so when he’d go too far with some of his ideas and get banned, he would ignore the board rules about not using sock monkeys to get around the ban and yet claim he was being honest when he signed the rules agreeing to abide by them. We saw a dozen or so variations within a few months time iirc, but it has been awhile since the last one.
 

He had what I thought was a very unique way of expressing himself; apparently not so unique as I thought though.  Your ideas are not identical, it is more the presentation that feels very familiar. He got creepy a few times as well, which was usually what got him banned, you haven’t in my view even if there are similarities (just in case you look him up).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Not what I was talking about and I think you should know that.  Adopted children have their own biological parents who actually reproduced themselves to produce those children.  The men or women who adopt them don't actually reproduce them.

Our gay friends call me and my straight wife "breeders", and we like the inclusiveness of there being an amusing "label" for us. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Obehave said:

Gay people can NEVER have any children of their own but they can come pretty close by adopting children who were lost or abandoned by their parents. 

Many gay parents are raising their own biological children. I think what you mean is a gay couple currently can not have children that are biologically children of both parents.

”Their own” needs to be written as “their own biological children” because adopted kids are the parents’ own children.  To write it otherwise is insulting to all the adoptive parents who have accepted children fully into their homes and hearts and even been sealed to them for eternity in many cases and see no difference between adopted children and biological except for the biological fact.  My in-laws adopted and my sister-in-law is treated no different than any other sibling, my niece no different than my nephews.  They are all children of their hearts and minds, which counts the most imo.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Comments accepted.  I think you understand what I was talking about. Instead of me saying "currently" I said NEVER because as far as we know there is no other way to reproduce ourselves without both a woman and a man.

Cloning is a possibility in the not so distant future.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Obehave said:

I don't think so.  I think that would only be a mortal body with no life in it.  Scientists aren't claiming to be able to reproduce the spirit of God for a body now, are they?  A mortal body without a spirit in it is not alive.

If bodies for spirits can be made in vitro, why not cloning?  Not much difference than having an identical twin genetically speaking.  And then it gets implanted like in vitro?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We have cloned animals and they are alive. If it is true that animals have spirits as well what is the difference?

I think there are doctrinal ramifications, though, for human spirits being "called into" cloned bodies that makes it different from Dolly the sheep.

Was it God's eternal will that spirits XYZ enter mortality that way,or is the "pulling"of the spirit into cloned bodies completely at the will,mercy, and beck and call of people cloning? 

It does raise ethical and theological questions for many.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think there are doctrinal ramifications, though, for human spirits being "called into" cloned bodies that makes it different from Dolly the sheep.

Was it God's eternal will that spirits XYZ enter mortality that way,or is the "pulling"of the spirit into cloned bodies completely at the will,mercy, and beck and call of people cloning? 

It does raise ethical and theological questions for many.

It does but claiming that it won’t work as was suggested is a kind of “God of the Gaps” argument. It lasts until someone does it and it works. If it doesn’t work that would be truly interesting.

Admittedly though I have it on good authority that the Last Vampire and the Anti-Christ will both be cloned and soulless.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Obehave said:

Not what I was talking about and I think you should know that.  Adopted children have their own biological parents who actually reproduced themselves to produce those children.  The men or women who adopt them don't actually reproduce them.

So you are ok with gay couples adopting, just not remaining childless.  

And do you feel the same way about straight couples that consciously choose not to have children??  Are they bad and evil as well?

I honestly think you are going down a rabbit hole that you will not be able to rationally argue your way out of.  It is just coming across as prejudice against gay couples.  If every single heterosexual couple had children, then you might have a point.  But that is just not the case.  Families come in all shapes and sizes and in different ways.  Only 25% of the population live in a home of father/mother/children.  

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I really think we should go with the “don’t knock it until you’ve tried it” wisdom about gay kisses.

I had a gay friend who apparently got the wrong idea one time.  He caught me by surprise, as I had no idea he felt that way towards me.  All of a sudden it was stubble and tongue and bad breath, and without my permission.  Not my cuppa tea.  

It was weird and uncomfortable between us after that, but my one negative experience pales in comparison to what many if not most women have gone through. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I really think we should go with the “don’t knock it until you’ve tried it” wisdom about gay kisses.

I will admit that this kiss, in this movie, at this time, gave me the courage to finally explore my bi-curious side.  God bless you Disney!

Turns out, men are as gross and revolting as I had originally expected.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, manol said:

I had a gay friend who apparently got the wrong idea one time.  He caught me by surprise, as I had no idea he felt that way towards me.  All of a sudden it was stubble and tongue and bad breath, and without my permission.  Not my cuppa tea.  

It was weird and uncomfortable between us after that, but my one negative experience pales in comparison to what many if not most women have gone through. 

Look, I am not gay and I SAID I WAS SORRY! How many times do I have to apologize?

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

I will admit that this kiss, in this movie, at this time, gave me the courage to finally explore my bi-curious side.  God bless you Disney!

Turns out, men are as gross and revolting as I had originally expected.

Self-exploration is not a valid method of exploring bi-curiousity.

Sorry about the self-loathing though. Have you considered therapy?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think there are doctrinal ramifications, though, for human spirits being "called into" cloned bodies that makes it different from Dolly the sheep.

Was it God's eternal will that spirits XYZ enter mortality that way,or is the "pulling"of the spirit into cloned bodies completely at the will,mercy, and beck and call of people cloning? 

It does raise ethical and theological questions for many.

I don’t honestly see much difference biologically between a man and woman deciding to have sex and getting pregnant as to a man with a woman or a woman deciding not to have sex and get cloned and getting pregnant.  Both will result in an embryo that is biologically capable of life. Why would the cloned one not be capable of housing a spirit?  It would have already been proven to be a fully functioning model since the person it was cloned from would be successfully living and with a spirit, correct?  And it would be identical to that source.

I agree there are ethical issues. But there are ethical issues with getting pregnant. 
 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ipod Touch said:

This over-the-top response to an obvious sarcastic post explains a lot.

Oh, c’mon! Boring! That is your rejoinder? I gave you at least three fun attack openings and all you come back with is a fallacious insinuation about understanding sarcasm and a lazy implication you left undefined because you couldn’t come up with anything?

Take some pride in your work!

economy-slogan-signs-pstr2224-lg.gif

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...