Gay kiss in the buzz light year movie

[InCognitus]

27 minutes ago, Chum said:

So, are there meatheads in school systems? Sure. Of every possible stripe, including meatheads that see a "gay and gender identity agendas being pushed on children", everywhere they look, no matter what's actually there. It's a big planet. Twitwits are all over it. They aren't representative of teachers.

Washington Post:  Gender identity lessons, banned in some schools, are rising in others

Kids in my last ward were encountering it.

[InCognitus]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know this is a mindset that is being sold, but perhaps you could explain exactly what gay agenda is being pushed on children in schools.

I don't know what's being "sold", but I only hear what the teachers and a school assigned police officer in my last ward told me, what my granddaughter has said, and what I see in headlines like those included in my last post.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Over 27 years, zero parents here reported anything remotely like that.

Our ward's gospel doctrine teacher moved here from Alberta a few months ago. She was surprised to discover that literally 1/10 of the children in her 6-year-old daughter's school class identify as 'non-binary'. How many did you have in your school class when you were six? And in fact, how many of your 6-year-old classmates would have understood the terms 'sexual identity' or 'gender identity'?

Edited June 21, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I don't know what's being "sold", but I only hear what the teachers and a school assigned police officer in my last ward told me, what my granddaughter has said, and what I see in headlines like those included in my last post.

 

This is what I asked you.

Quote

 

I know this is a mindset that is being sold, but perhaps you could explain exactly what gay agenda is being pushed on children in schools.  I am not asking for accusations or antidotal reports, I am asking for a broad agenda that is being pushed.  Because what I see is once again religion is trying to erase those that are gay by trying to push the idea that gay couples with children don't really exist and are attacking those families simply because they want to push their religious beliefs into the school system.  

So yeah, religion continues to interfere in peoples lives in order to push their narrative.  And people wonder why so many are leaving organized religion.  Maybe the vast majority of the population (70%)do believe that gay families have a right to exist and have a right to be acknowledged in the public square.

 

How is that an answer we should consider?  Because you seem to just be repeating the hysteria we are seeing that is totally unfounded or severely distorted from what is actually being said.  From the article you posted.

Quote

the discussion is more subtle: “Remember, families can come in all shapes and sizes!”

Isn't that a true statement?  Are schools suppose to only address "church approved" families?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

How is this different than gay and gender identity agendas being pushed on children in schools?

One exists and the other doesn’t.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Our ward's gospel doctrine teacher moved here from Alberta a few months ago. She was surprised to discover that literally 1/10 of the children in her 6-year-old daughter's school class identify as 'non-binary'. How many did you have in your school class when you were six? And in fact, how many of your 6-year-old classmates would have understood the terms 'sexual identity' or 'gender identity'?

That last one is a good question. In fact, I would actually check to see how many children do understand those terms before quizzing them on whether they are non-binary. You might find that the results of the survey are invalid.

Seriously, six year olds will raise their hands without knowing what is being talked about because enough of the other kids or their friend raised their hand. Adults do this too.

Actually can we quiz adults on whether they understand what sexual and gender identities are so we know whose opinions are worthless?

[MikeFoxtrot]

20 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Overall society was more intelligent in 1995. 

Are you basing that on the content of 20th century cartoons?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

And would you consider them anti Mormon? Again they label anything with a neutral representation of Latter-day Saints as boycott worthy. Don’t want their children exposed to it. Anti-Mormon?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And would you consider them anti Mormon? Again they label anything with a neutral representation of Latter-day Saints as boycott worthy. Don’t want their children exposed to it. Anti-Mormon?

Hmmm.  Good question.

Probably not.  I think I would only ever label someone caustically hateful towards me and my religion as anti-mormon.  Though, I know that others define that differently.  Like I said, we've been friends for decades.  They are definitely anti-my religion (as in they completely disagree with it and even find it harmful) but they aren't anti-"mormons".

Honestly, I never stopped to try to label it before.  I never felt the need to.  What purpose would it serve?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hmmm.  Good question.

Probably not.  I think I would only ever label someone caustically hateful towards me and my religion as anti-mormon.  Though, I know that others define that differently.  Like I said, we've been friends for decades.  They are definitely anti-my religion (as in they completely disagree with it and even find it harmful) but they aren't anti-"mormons".

So they are “anti-[your] religion” just like someone who would boycott a company that produces a film showing no explicit expressed homosexuality would *by definition be anti-LGBT (bringing us full circle to your initial question)  

 

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Honestly, I never stopped to try to label it before.  I never felt the need to.  What purpose would it serve?

That completely depends on your purpose. If you are trying to maintain a friendship at all costs with them, it would serve no purpose. If you want to improve your relationship, then perhaps you might share why, when they call you unchristian, you find that hurtful and offensive. If we don’t express ourselves and defend ourselves in the face of harm, then we deny them the opportunity to grow. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So they are “anti-[your] religion” just like someone who would boycott a company that produces a film showing no explicit expressed homosexuality would *by definition be anti-LGBT (bringing us full circle to your initial question)  

Not financially supporting X is not the equivalent of opposing X.

I don't financially support Scientology, but I am not "anti-Scientology."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So they are “anti-[your] religion” just like someone who would boycott a company that produces a film showing no explicit expressed homosexuality would *by definition be anti-LGBT (bringing us full circle to your initial question)  

You seem to be trying to establish a baseline here - one that someone might become beholden to.

If I can be presumptive here: I believe what @bluebellis doing is considering the issue in front of her, along with it's risk of potential harm.  That would allow her to work with what is, instead of what might be.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So they are “anti-[your] religion” just like someone who would boycott a company that produces a film showing no explicit expressed homosexuality would *by definition be anti-LGBT (bringing us full circle to your initial question)  

Uh, yeah.  I'm not seeing that.  They are anti-my religion in that they don't agree with it. But they do not dislike Latter-day Saints. 

How is that the same as labeling people who boycott Lightyear "homophobic", which specifically means to dislike gay people?

Quote

That completely depends on your purpose. If you are trying to maintain a friendship at all costs with them, it would serve no purpose. If you want to improve your relationship, then perhaps you might share why, when they call you unchristian, you find that hurtful and offensive. If we don’t express ourselves and defend ourselves in the face of harm, then we deny them the opportunity to grow. 

All you've said above moves the goal posts to something I'm not actually asking.

What I am asking is what purpose would it serve to accuse them of not liking me, when I have gobs and gobs of evidence that they do like me and have been nothing but supportive of me personally, even though they don't present my religion in a favorable light to their children?

Does someone have to present my religion in a favorable light to their children to keep me from harm?  To be supportive?  To not be anti? 

I would say absolutely not, but if I'm reading you right, you disagree and believing that being willing to present my beliefs to their children in a favorable way is absolutely necessary.

Edited June 21, 2022 by bluebell

[Amulek]

Quote

Gay kiss in the buzz light year movie

Well, so long as it is consensual I guess that's a step up as far as Disney is concerned.

It's good to see that they are finally moving beyond their Cosby-esque past of having heroes kiss on girls while they are asleep.

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Amulek

[Fether]

23 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I haven't seen the Buzz Lightyear movie yet, or that particular clip from it either, but I'd like to ask you Why do you call it a "gay" kiss?

I'll assume two people or animated characters of the same sex kissed each other.  Do you consider every kiss between 2 people of the same sex to be a "gay" kiss?  I don't.

I've kissed my Dad before, and my brother, and I did not consider that to be a gay kiss.  And considering my belief that all men on this planet are brothers, I suppose I could kiss any man without considering it to be a gay kiss.

I might even plant a big wet one on my of my brothers just to get a laugh out of it later.

But anyway, I will allow for the possibility that the kiss you are talking about in the Buzz Lightyear movie could have been a "gay" kiss, which I suppose would mean those characters are gay. 

Which would mean we now have gay animated characters in animated movies.  Who knew or even dreamed of such a thing in our day?  Is this Pixar or Disney?

It is Pixar, and Pixar is Disney.

it is a gay kiss because the people kissing are gay.

[Fether]

13 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, so long as it is consensual I guess that's a step up as far as Disney is concerned.

It's good to see that they are finally moving beyond their Cosby-esque past of having heroes kiss on girls while they are asleep.

 

or worst
4:20 - 5:00

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not financially supporting X is not the equivalent of opposing X.

I don't financially support Scientology, but I am not "anti-Scientology."

Thanks,

-Smac

If you stop going to Disney movies, parks etc, because they had a scene that mentioned someone just came from an auditing session, then yes, that makes you anti-Scientology. By definition. If you decide to withdraw support for a venue because it happens to host interracial marriages, that by definition makes you a racist. It doesn’t mean that you don’t have black friends, or that you hate back people, but it definitely means you are a racist. By definition. 

Edited June 21, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Uh, yeah.  I'm not seeing that.  They are anti-my religion in that they don't agree with it. But they do not dislike Latter-day Saints. 

How is that the same as labeling people who boycott Lightyear "homophobic", which specifically means to dislike gay people?

Perhaps a definitional issue? Per wiki: “Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.” Emphasis mine. My parents have racist attitudes. My mom once described someone’s black adopted child as “the best they could get”. And yet they have black friends. They even took a blank woman on a multi-week trip with them. Do they hate black people? No. Do they have some racist attitudes? Yes!

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All you've said above moves the goal posts to something I'm not actually asking.

What I am asking is what purpose would it serve to accuse them of not liking me, when I have gobs and gobs of evidence that they do like me and have been nothing but supportive of me personally, even though they don't present my religion in a favorable light to their children?

I see we are talking past each other on a definitional issue (for which I apologize). I love my siblings and their families, but I am definitely strongly anti dogmatic religion and I think that it’s influence is negatively impacting their children. Despite this we try to have the closest relationship we can. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have a bias against organized religion though. 

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rivers]

14 hours ago, provoman said:

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

And that was done for comedic purposes.  
 

The kiss in Lightyear is done for the purpose of normalization.  There is an agenda behind it.  Whether you agree or disagree with that agenda is up to you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Rivers said:

And that was done for comedic purposes.  
 

The kiss in Lightyear is done for the purpose of normalization.  There is an agenda behind it.  Whether you agree or disagree with that agenda is up to you.

Was there an agenda in the movie Incredibles when this happened?

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, Fether said:

It is Pixar, and Pixar is Disney.

it is a gay kiss because the people kissing are gay.

I was hugged by a gay person. Does this mean I have had gay hugs?

I have also kissed gay people. Are those all gay kisses?

So many questions.

[The Nehor]

Uh-oh, I am the gay.

I have dated women and dating women is now really gay. I guess that means I am coming out of the closet.

So do I need to get an ID card? Do I get a discount at IKEA or something? How does this work? Is it random whether I date guys or girls now or do I have to rotate back and forth? Is there a certain ratio I have to maintain?

This is very confusing.

[T-Shirt]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have also kissed gay people. Are those all gay kisses?

Were they gay before or after you kissed them?

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Were they gay before or after you kissed them?

Before. Afterwards they were all bisexual. Even the previously straight ones. Except the ones who were bisexual before. They all became depraved pansexual perverts. Except Fred. He became a Unitarian.

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Not everything everyone says is true so you should do your own research (while asking God) rather than just believe whatever some person on Twitter or the internet may tell you.