Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Gay kiss in the buzz light year movie


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Rivers said:

It’s not just a kiss.  It’s a message to kids that same-sex  relationships are fundamentally no different than a relationship between a man and woman.  It’s a subversion of the family unit as ordained  by God which is the bedrock of our entire society.

Don't be ridiculous. Heterosexual people will keep marrying heterosexual people and having babies. None of that is dependent upon a homosexual relationship just plain existing. 

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
10 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is there room to not want to teach your kids that SS relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships in God's eyes and also not be accused of not liking gays?

Nope. That can't be allowed. In the arithmetic that has been carefully crafted on this issue, of necessity disapproval of behaviour = hatred of person. This is a perfectly designed trap for Christians who believe in the centrality of love.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Don't be ridiculous. Heterosexual people will keep marrying heterosexual people and having babies. None of that is dependent upon the existence of a homosexual relationship just plain existing. 

Yeah, it's completely ridiculous! Even suggesting otherwise is pure evil.

1 in 6 Gen Z adults are LGBT. And this number could continue to grow.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The evidence is mixed, at best ...

The historical, anthropological, and linguistic evidence isn't.

Quote

... but carry on with your bigotry.

Yep: disagreement = hatred. It has to be, or the whole discourse is at risk of self-deconstructing even sooner.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The historical, anthropological, and linguistic evidence isn't.

Yep: disagreement = hatred. It has to be, or the whole discourse is at risk of unravelling.

Well given your accusation against me that I was saying anyone was engaging in "pure evil" (which I didn't), I don't think I'm the one bearing the responsibility for taking the discourse down a level...or three.

ETA: I'm thinking the scientific evidence will ultimately overwhelm the historical, anthropological, and linguistic evidence.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't think I'm the one bearing the responsibility for taking the discourse down a level...or three.

Nice wordplay! But I was using discourse in the Foucauldian sense: 'Any discourse that attempts to represent dominant ideologies as natural or commonsensical is hegemonical' (Machin and Mayr 2012: 24; Wodak and Meyer, 2016: 9).

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The historical, anthropological, and linguistic evidence isn't.

Yep: disagreement = hatred. It has to be, or the whole discourse is at risk of self-deconstructing even sooner.

Since you are making the accusation that disagreement = hatred, maybe you could point out in this thread where ANYONE actually believes that or has wrote anything even remotely like that.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Your implied assumption is that being LBGT is a choice. The evidence is mixed, at best, on that assumption but carry on with your bigotry.

If the evidence is mixed, then why would it be bigotry to assume that it could be a choice? (just asking the question, I don’t claim a position on the choice issue because I think it depends on what is identified as the choice or how choice is defined.)

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

If a parent feels they don’t want their child to be exposed to a gay kiss, then simply don’t watch the movie. It really is that simple. 

What I find interesting is the lack of discussion threads about cartoon movies that show violence, killings, children being raised out of wedlock, theft, people lying and so much more.

Edited by Ragerunner
Link to comment
2 hours ago, california boy said:

At some point, perhaps you might realize that while gay couples may not be identical to your family, they can still be a family.  My partner and I have been together over 13 years.  He is my partner every bit as much as your partner is for you.  My very Mormon family consider him a part of our larger family.  It took them opening up their hearts and minds.  When they did, they found a very loving and kind man.  They see the love and value he brings not only into my life but to their lives and their children's lives.  

If families are the bedrock of our entire society, then you should be encouraging gay couples to also form those families.  

Okay, but have you ever considered the advantages of living and later dying alone and unloved instead? That way they will only suspect you of being gay.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the evidence is mixed, then why would it be bigotry to assume that it could be a choice?

Or something else altogether, which I suspect is (has been?) far more common in our days. But yeah, it's an important question, one that highlights how thoroughly this matter depends on defending the dominant discourse rather than dispassionately considering evidence.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
On 6/19/2022 at 6:58 PM, Fether said:

Here is what the REAL issue is…

It isn’t lore  friendly.
 

Toy story 1 takes place in 1995. Buzz light year was supposed to be a starwars equivalent for the toy story universe. 
 

There is NO way a movie released in 1995 would have been as widely accepted as StarWars if it had a gay kiss

If we consider that all minions are “male”, then there was a “gay kiss” in Despicable Me - with one of the minions dressed in “female” clothes

Link to comment
12 hours ago, bluebell said:

In it, this sister says that anyone who has a problem with the kiss is homophobic.  She says it as if it's a given fact, but I don't know that I agree.  Personally, I probably wouldn't have an issue with it and it likely won't stop me from letting my littles watch it (if they even want to, which is doubtful), but is there room to not want to teach your kids that SS relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships in God's eyes and also not be accused of not liking gays?

Let’s say you have a friend that loved and supported you *despite you being a Latter-day Saint. You find out that this friend would never let their kid see a movie that showed a temple in the background, or ever see a tv show that showed a Latter-day Saint in a non-demonized role. Further you find that they are upset enough at the companies producing “the Latter-day Saint agenda” that they are boycotting the company producing said film or show. 
 

Do you agree that this person loves and supports you? Do they hold any bigoted feelings towards the church?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Let’s say you have a friend that loved and supported you *despite you being a Latter-day Saint. You find out that this friend would never let their kid see a movie that showed a temple in the background, or ever see a tv show that showed a Latter-day Saint in a non-demonized role. Further you find that they are upset enough at the companies producing “the Latter-day Saint agenda” that they are boycotting the film. 

You just described my friend Clint!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Nope. That can't be allowed. In the arithmetic that has been carefully crafted on this issue, of necessity disapproval of behaviour = hatred of person. This is a perfectly designed trap for Christians who believe in the centrality of love.

The problem is not what Christians believe.  It's what Christians do.  The LDS church got involved politically and actively opposed gay marriage.  That's what got them in spotlight and that's what brought the criticism.  Same with other fundy Christian churches.  It churches wouldn't push their beliefs on non-members, they would be largely left alone.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

It [sic] churches wouldn't push their beliefs on non-members, they would be largely left alone.

This is simply not true (and not just because you have included a false premise). The belief that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to God's plan must be labelled 'homophobic' regardless of political participation or lack thereof.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Let’s say you have a friend that loved and supported you *despite you being a Latter-day Saint. You find out that this friend would never let their kid see a movie that showed a temple in the background, or ever see a tv show that showed a Latter-day Saint in a non-demonized role. Further you find that they are upset enough at the companies producing “the Latter-day Saint agenda” that they are boycotting the company producing said film or show. 
 

Do you agree that this person loves and supports you? Do they hold any bigoted feelings towards the church?

I actually have a couple of friends like that. I’ve been friends with them since high school.  They are Baptists and their pastor showed Godmakers in their church when we were teenagers.  I’m going to hell if you ask them.

But yes, I still consider them to be friends. We were closer in high school (and they were much more caustic back then when religion came up) but we still interact often.

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

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