Gay kiss in the buzz light year movie

[california boy]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

I don't let my children watch R rated movies. Is this considered a boycott in your opinion? The reasons for not wanting them to watch R rated movies varies, but often times it is because of sexual situations portrayed in the film. Having someone drink a cup of coffee is drastically different than the sexual scenes depicted.

We are talking about a kiss here.   I think that is G rated. Turning it into some sexual situation only when a gay couple does it is dishonest at best.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Obehave said:

My Eeeewwww comment was my lighthearted attempt to say "I do not approve of that message" in a nice and maybe funny way.

“Eeeewwww” is not a particularly nice way of saying disapproval since it is a sign of disgust.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

We are talking about a kiss here.   I think that is G rated. Turning it into some sexual situation only when a gay couple does it is dishonest at best.

A “hello there, how was your day, this isn’t going anywhere” kiss too, not a “I can’t keep my hands off you” kiss or a “do you know how much I love you” kiss.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Calm

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Obehave said:

You're showing me that you don't correctly understand what I said.  I said loving others of the same sex is all fine and dandy, and good. 

And I said same sex sexual relationships are bad and evil because they can NEVER offer what opposite sex couples can have, which is their own children. Because it takes one of both sexes to have children together.

No, I understood exactly what you said.  Telling me that same sex sexual relationships are bad and evil because they can NEVER offer what opposite sex couples can have is not true.  Are the apostles bad and evil because they can no longer have children?  Is my brother and his wife bad and evil because they couldn't have children.  You are so out of line here calling anyone bad and evil because they can't have children.

12 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Not bigoted because my position is not based on an obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction. I think your attachment is that, and if I saw your position as more reasonable and less about obstinance I would switch to your position.

I haven't always been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and if I ever found more reasonable beliefs to believe in then I would switch affiliations in a heartbeat. 

When you only apply that belief to someone who is gay, then maybe it is time to reread the definition.  It is unreasonable, prejudicial attitude.  Checking all the boxes.

[ttribe]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

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.)

I was being kind in saying the evidence is mixed. It is my perception that the majority of those who identify as homosexual did not choose to be attracted to the same-sex; they simply are and always have been. For many in my generation (I'm 50), that meant living 'in the closet' and hiding who they really were. I suspect there is a small minority whose preferences may be more fluid and choose to live either a heterosexual or homosexual life. But, I find it laughable to the point of scorn for someone to suggest that your average heterosexual can be 'recruited' into homosexuality; it would go against their very nature, just as those who are homosexual who were forced to live a hetero life were living against their nature.

Nevertheless, my comment was not made in a vacuum and was influenced by the many posts made by this same individual which are decidedly hostile to our gay brothers and sisters.

[ttribe]

59 minutes ago, Obehave said:

My Eeeewwww comment was my lighthearted attempt to say "I do not approve of that message" in a nice and maybe funny way.

Oh grow up.

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

A “hello there, how was your day, this isn’t going anywhere” kiss too, not a “I can’t keep my hands off you” kiss or a “do you know how much I love you” kiss.

Maybe a video series on the difference between these kiss types will help? Anyone want to volunteer to model them with me?

[Fether]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

We are talking about a kiss here.   I think that is G rated. Turning it into some sexual situation only when a gay couple does it is dishonest at best.

I have to be honest with my conscience on this.

I agree.

We are more ok watching a money where Tony Stark has casual premarital sex. We are fine with drug references in Star Wars. We are fine with alcohol use in Lord of the Rings. 

Why are we not fine with a gay couple in a movie/tv show? There are times where it is advertly shoved in your face over and over (I am looking at you "Arrowverse") and it becomes painfully obvious that there is a major agenda trying to be pushed. But this Buzz Lightyear scene is really not one of those moments. It is just as subtle as the drug dealer walking up to Kenobi in StarWars Episode 2... Yet that didn't bother anyone.

Why is this any different? 

The clear (latter-day saint) answer is that the world, even within the church, is ok with more and more evil in their lives. We are only concerned about the next evil, but once that is securely planted we will no longer care.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

I have to be honest with my conscience on this.

I agree.

We are more ok watching a money where Tony Stark has casual premarital sex. We are fine with drug references in Star Wars. We are fine with alcohol use in Lord of the Rings. 

Why are we not fine with a gay couple in a movie/tv show? There are times where it is advertly shoved in your face over and over (I am looking at you "Arrowverse") and it becomes painfully obvious that there is a major agenda trying to be pushed. But this Buzz Lightyear scene is really not one of those moments. It is just as subtle as the drug dealer walking up to Kenobi in StarWars Episode 2... Yet that didn't bother anyone.

Why is this any different? 

The clear (latter-day saint) answer is that the world, even within the church, is ok with more and more evil in their lives. We are only concerned about the next evil, but once that is securely planted we will no longer care.

There is a lot of truth in what you wrote.  Sometimes I think that one of the main reasons some churches attack LGBTQ issues so much and so hard is that they feel like they have lost so many other battles (all of them that you mentioned) that maybe if they tighten their grip tight enough somehow they will be able to control it. They do this so tightly that they can't see the upside of accepting gay relationships within the confines of marriage.  More stable families, bringing them into the fold of Christ, helping LGBT people find a closer relationship with Christ, etc.  Instead, it is a red line in the sand and unless you are willing to give up the happiness and fulfillment that a spouse gives us in this life, you become an outcast, apostate, and as some have said here on this very thread bad and evil.  How does that help anyone draw closer to Christ??  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is a lot of truth in what you wrote.  Sometimes I think that one of the main reasons some churches attack LGBTQ issues so much and so hard is that they feel like they have lost so many other battles (all of them that you mentioned) that maybe if they tighten their grip tight enough somehow they will be able to control it. They do this so tightly that they can't see the upside of accepting gay relationships within the confines of marriage.  More stable families, bringing them into the fold of Christ, helping LGBT people find a closer relationship with Christ, etc.  Instead, it is a red line in the sand and unless you are willing to give up the happiness and fulfillment that a spouse gives us in this life, you become an outcast, apostate, and as some have said here on this very thread bad and evil.  How does that help anyone draw closer to Christ??  

I suspect it is easy to beat the war drums about because the risk is minimal. If you speak out against gambling or corruption or alcohol abuse or whatever you risk alienating a lot of people and people who are casually involved may take umbrage. Targeting homosexuality is hitting something that a lot of people never have to personally deal with in their own character. It is easier to vilify as there is no need for self-examination for most of their listeners. It is pretty much the platonic ideal of preaching “smooth things”.

[filovirus]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

We are talking about a kiss here.   I think that is G rated. Turning it into some sexual situation only when a gay couple does it is dishonest at best.

I said nothing of the kiss. I was solely responding that we as parents make lots of decisions on what we want our children watching. Rated R movies being one of them in my household. My question was, is this considered “boycotting”? And if so, who am I boycotting? Is it a boycot if it’s for religious reasons and not a boycot if it isn’t?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I said nothing of the kiss. I was solely responding that we as parents make lots of decisions on what we want our children watching. Rated R movies being one of them in my household. My question was, is this considered “boycotting”? And if so, who am I boycotting? Is it a boycot if it’s for religious reasons and not a boycot if it isn’t?

In the original meaning of the word no really. A boycott has to target a person or an entity to economically and/or socially punish them for a specific action. Unless people are boycotting Disney on a larger scale beyond not seeing a movie (and I wish them luck with that) it is not a boycott.

[InCognitus]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

"Hysteria"?  "Totally unfounded"?  "Severely distorted"?  All I did was post an article that said exactly what I was talking about.

20 hours ago, california boy said:

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?

There is nothing wrong with that statement (if that's all that was going on).  But why did you pick the only sane statement in the article as an example?  Why not include the context (quoted below)?

Quote

Some lessons are direct: “Who can describe what transgender means?” In other classes, the discussion is more subtle: “Remember, families can come in all shapes and sizes!”

Why put ideas like this into the minds of little children who would otherwise never even consider such things?

Edited June 22, 2022 by InCognitus

[smac97]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

 

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

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

 

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.

Bull.  It makes me nothing of the sort.  

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

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Yawn.  The "If you disagree with me you're a racist / bigot / homophobe" schtick is not really working, but it seems to be all you have left.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rivers]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you believe gay people actually exist?

Do you believe they actually kiss?

Is that not normal for a gay person?

Maybe the agenda is simply that gay people are part of this world too.  They are human.  They hold hands.  They kiss.  They are attracted to each other.  They kiss.  wow how crazy is that?

Is that such a scary thought for you? 

If you have a problem with that, then that is solely your problem.  Forcing your personal religious beliefs on others isn't really an option you have.  Pretending it is not normal doesn't make it abnormal.  So yeah.  I hate to break it to you, but two gay people kissing is already normalized.

I realize it’s normalized already.  Public opinion has changed a ton since I was in High School. I’m pretty sure high schoolers today don’t use the phrases that were common when I was a teenager.  We’ve become a lot more tolerant over the years as a society.  
 

Many parents are don’t want same-sex relationships in kids movies, I think, because this a subject they would prefer to talk to their kids about rather than being exposed to it in a movie.  When I end up having to teach my kids about the birds and bees, I would prefer to start with heterosexual relationships.  That part will be hard enough to talk about to kids.  I’ll eventually have to talk about gay relationships because they are something that exist in the world.  I’d rather talk about that later once they got other stuff understood.  
 

My parents never did talk to me about gay relationships other than that they’re not ordained of God.  I plan on being much more nuanced with my kids.  Sexuality is a complicated subject.   I hope to teach them the principles of the Proclamation while still loving all God’s children.  It’s going to be tough but good thing my kids are still little.  I don’t have to worry about it for a while.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Rivers

[sunstoned]

On 6/20/2022 at 10:35 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

It's find to believe that.  It's fine to preach that.  It is not fine to try and take away other people's rights just because they don't believe that way.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Rivers said:

I realize it’s normalized already.  Public opinion has changed a ton since I was in High School. I’m pretty sure high schoolers today don’t use the phrases that were common when I was a teenager.  We’ve become a lot more tolerant over the years as a society.  
 

Many parents are don’t want same-sex relationships in kids movies, I think, because this a subject they would prefer to talk to their kids about rather than being exposed to it in a movie.  When I end up having to teach my kids about the birds and bees, I would prefer to start with heterosexual relationships.  That part will be hard enough to talk about to kids.  I’ll eventually have to talk about gay relationships because they are something that exist in the world.  I’d rather talk about that later once they got other stuff understood.  
 

My parents never did talk to me about gay relationships other than that their not ordained of God.  I plan on being much more nuanced with my kids.  Sexuality is a complicated subject.   I hope to teach them the principles of the Proclamation while still loving all God’s children.  It’s going to be tough but good thing my kids are still little.  I don’t have to worry about it for a while.

 

 

If you wait for the sex talk they will probably have already encountered gay and lesbian relationships “in the wild” amongst the parents of their friends. The idea that you will be able to save that talk for later seems a little far fetched unless gay marriage is delegalized or something.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

I agree that I should not tell you how to raise your children.  That of course is totally up to you. And I apologize if I came off that way.   I was talking more in the general sense than you specifically.  Of course age appropriate viewing is something parents weigh.  But I didn't police every single thing my children watched on tv, in the movies, on the streets, at their schools etc.  (They grew up when daily news programs discussed the oral sex of Bill Clinton.). I couldn't.  No parent can.

I am not going to tell you how to raise your children.  But I would ask you to seriously consider whether shielding children from  a kiss by a same sex couple in a cartoon movie that if you blink you would miss it is all that important.  That kind of helicoptering rarely turns out well.

 

 

You'd have to ask the parents who won't watch the movie because of the kiss.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Definition of homophobia is not the same as arachnophobia.  Maybe getting on the same page with definitions would help. 

It's not the same as any phobia is it? I think that does mess up communication a bit.

That and how the definition of homophobia requires a negative moral judgement component and no other phobia definition does.

Edited June 22, 2022 by bluebell

[Vanguard]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

We are talking about a kiss here.   I think that is G rated. Turning it into some sexual situation only when a gay couple does it is dishonest at best.

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? 

[bluebell]

14 minutes 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 do think the agenda matters.

Attempting to teach that gay people exist, have loving relationships just like heterosexual people, are good people, deserve love and respect, etc. is not an evil agenda.  I'm very supportive of that.

But wanting to teach kids that not viewing SS relationships and heterosexual relationships as completely equal in every way makes you a bad person?  I'll push back against that agenda most of the time.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Obehave said:

I taught and still teach my children that is good for them to love everybody, all boys and girls and men and women.  It's just not good to have sexual relationships with everybody, and the opposite sex should be more fascinating than your own sex.

It's a fun subject to bring up from time to time.  The main focus for me is to make sure they know how I really feel and what I really think.  I also recommend that they ask God to find out how he feels about it.

Sexuality.  It's something we deal with every day of our lives. 

I hope none of your children are gay, they will be set up to not being able to accept their sexuality, sadly. ETA: You sound similar to a previous poster, Ahab. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Obehave said:

I meant nicer than to say "I think that's disgusting" and I meant maybe funny because of why children say that when they are innocent and can't imagine actually enjoying a kiss.  Pre teen or early teen years, usually.

How do you feel about kissing and making up with white whales?

Edit: Beaten.

Edited June 22, 2022 by The Nehor

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

How do you feel about kissing and making up with white whales?

Edit: Beaten.

I can’t get past he is so much easier to understand though than Ahab.  Maybe Ahab took a writing course?  Maybe he is Ahab’s twin?

 Could there be more than one ‘Ahab’ out there?  And somehow both found their way to this board?  It is an unusual perspective.

[Calm]

I just checked, thought someone had asked and he had answered, but apparently not.  Ahab has avoided the question, but never lied about being Ahab as far as I can tell.

Obehave, are you Ahab by chance?  Please settle the question so I can stop wondering.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Calm