|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 8, 2017 11:51:20 GMT
I guess it's true. Apparently 'Beauty and the Beast' will have a gay character in it. Is Disney going to far in having a gay character? "There may have been a day in the now distant past, where the preachers and Evangelists would have gotten a nice bump from such histrionics; a time when they may have even convinced some Biblically illiterate, easily suggestible bystanders to go along with them. It may have been sound Church business at one time. But these self-righteous reservoirs are drying up, as the old folks in these communities die out and the buildings themselves grow dormant, with no new converts to fill them. They are quickly become dusty museums of a religious bigotry that thankfully fewer and fewer people feel like practicing. Today these protests are falling on deaf ears, by an educated, technologically connected generation, who see such obsessions with people’s personal plumbing all as much ado about nothing. They have no interest in a Church who doesn’t seem at all burdened to attend to the real suffering in the world, preferring to protest musicals, out terrified teenagers, and police public bathrooms for nonexistent boogeymen. From here.The internet says that America is 83% Christian 13% Atheist 4% Other My own estimation is that most of the people who self identify as Christian are more atheist than people who call themselves atheists. So it might be more like this 6% Christian 84% Atheist 10% Other How would I know that? It is a very good question and deserves an answer. I paid attention to the 2016 presidential elections and observed the numerous polls that were taken. Even most of you can guess something is terribly wrong even though you have not studied these issues in your college classes. The good news is that the 10% "other" are capable of putting things back in order despite the fiasco of the election. The small percentage of actual Christians can readily learn what to do from them. The atheists will take a little longer to train. One thing you probably did learn at some point in your education is not to generalize about people. Although many people who live near the shore enjoy seafood, it would be wrong to assume that Carl enjoys seafood merely because he lives near the shore. What most of you did not learn is that generalization is actually necessary, not in the sense of prejudging individuals, you still should not, but in the sense of getting a read on how many people enjoy seafood who live near the shore and elsewhere. For example basketball might have a larger percentage of black fans than other sports. Tennis might have a higher percentage of European fans than other sports. If you find the way I count upsetting, you are encouraged to conduct your own counts. The thing to remember that you should not do no matter what is assume that simply because Carl is black he prefers basketball to tennis. I already generalized in making my own count of Christians, atheists and others. Watch out, I have more, which of course you should not accept without careful critical analysis. The 84% of atheists are divided into two groups, Christian Atheists and Military Atheists. Christian Atheists are people who like the philosophical teachings of the New Testament as they interpret them, but deny that Jesus is a god. They also deny that his father or the Holy Spirit is a god. Military Atheists believe in military or police control of society, but see no need to consult any religion on how that should be done, because they believe there are no gods. They are generally (watch that) not capable of reading any scriptures with understanding. Generally speaking, and remember to be careful generalizing, Democrats are Christian Atheists and Republicans are Military Atheists. Although the the two types of atheists sharply disagree on what the problems are, they generally (watch that) agree that the military and government are the solution to the problems. They also have no objection to homosexuality or same sex marriage.
The election of Donald Trump signals a breaking down of that order. He won partly because the religious right is gaining support although he does not represent the religious right. He represents Military Atheists. They might bring about changes the religious right wants, but it is not likely since they have no means to persuade Christian Atheists to convert. In fact Military Atheists will likely increase the support of Christian Atheism. Time will tell. If and when they fail, a new interest in actual science will emerge. Currently most of the interest in "science" is nothing but a childlike and very misguided faith in science. The actual science has found increasing evidence that there must have been an intelligent designer. That "there is no scientific evidence of a god" is not science. It is a political and very popular idea though. Democrats, Republicans, Christian and Military Atheists do not want to believe the true science. Although many Republicans claim to believe in a god they do not, as we have just seen. When they fail to change anything without acknowledging one they will at last consider getting out of the way of the real science. That will be some time later.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 8, 2017 12:00:32 GMT
I guess it's true. Apparently 'Beauty and the Beast' will have a gay character in it. Is Disney going to far in having a gay character? "There may have been a day in the now distant past, where the preachers and Evangelists would have gotten a nice bump from such histrionics; a time when they may have even convinced some Biblically illiterate, easily suggestible bystanders to go along with them. It may have been sound Church business at one time. But these self-righteous reservoirs are drying up, as the old folks in these communities die out and the buildings themselves grow dormant, with no new converts to fill them. They are quickly become dusty museums of a religious bigotry that thankfully fewer and fewer people feel like practicing. Today these protests are falling on deaf ears, by an educated, technologically connected generation, who see such obsessions with people’s personal plumbing all as much ado about nothing. They have no interest in a Church who doesn’t seem at all burdened to attend to the real suffering in the world, preferring to protest musicals, out terrified teenagers, and police public bathrooms for nonexistent boogeymen. From here.I always knew Winnie the Pooh and Piglet were sordid pervy partners! That's why Tigger was my favourite.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 12:05:13 GMT
I guess it's true. Apparently 'Beauty and the Beast' will have a gay character in it. Is Disney going to far in having a gay character? "There may have been a day in the now distant past, where the preachers and Evangelists would have gotten a nice bump from such histrionics; a time when they may have even convinced some Biblically illiterate, easily suggestible bystanders to go along with them. It may have been sound Church business at one time. But these self-righteous reservoirs are drying up, as the old folks in these communities die out and the buildings themselves grow dormant, with no new converts to fill them. They are quickly become dusty museums of a religious bigotry that thankfully fewer and fewer people feel like practicing. Today these protests are falling on deaf ears, by an educated, technologically connected generation, who see such obsessions with people’s personal plumbing all as much ado about nothing. They have no interest in a Church who doesn’t seem at all burdened to attend to the real suffering in the world, preferring to protest musicals, out terrified teenagers, and police public bathrooms for nonexistent boogeymen. From here.The internet says that America is 83% Christian 13% Atheist 4% Other My own estimation is that most of the people who self identify as Christian are more atheist than people who call themselves atheists. So it might be more like this 6% Christian 84% Atheist 10% Other How would I know that? It is a very good question and deserves an answer. I paid attention to the 2016 presidential elections and observed the numerous polls that were taken. Even most of you can guess something is terribly wrong even though you have not studied these issues in your college classes. The good news is that the 10% "other" are capable of putting things back in order despite the fiasco of the election. The small percentage of actual Christians can readily learn what to do from them. The atheists will take a little longer to train. One thing you probably did learn at some point in your education is not to generalize about people. Although many people who live near the shore enjoy seafood, it would be wrong to assume that Carl enjoys seafood merely because he lives near the shore. What most of you did not learn is that generalization is actually necessary, not in the sense of prejudging individuals, you still should not, but in the sense of getting a read on how many people enjoy seafood who live near the shore and elsewhere. For example basketball might have a larger percentage of black fans than other sports. Tennis might have a higher percentage of European fans than other sports. If you find the way I count upsetting, you are encouraged to conduct your own counts. The thing to remember that you should not do no matter what is assume that simply because Carl is black he prefers basketball to tennis. I already generalized in making my own count of Christians, atheists and others. Watch out, I have more, which of course you should not accept without careful critical analysis. The 84% of atheists are divided into two groups, Christian Atheists and Military Atheists. Christian Atheists are people who like the philosophical teachings of the New Testament as they interpret them, but deny that Jesus is a god. They also deny that his father or the Holy Spirit is a god. Military Atheists believe in military or police control of society, but see no need to consult any religion on how that should be done, because they believe there are no gods. They are generally (watch that) not capable of reading any scriptures with understanding. Generally speaking, and remember to be careful generalizing, Democrats are Christian Atheists and Republicans are Military Atheists. Although the the two types of atheists sharply disagree on what the problems are, they generally (watch that) agree that the military and government are the solution to the problems. They also have no objection to homosexuality or same sex marriage.
The election of Donald Trump signals a breaking down of that order. He won partly because the religious right is gaining support although he does not represent the religious right. He represents Military Atheists. They might bring about changes the religious right wants, but it is not likely since they have no means to persuade Christian Atheists to convert. In fact Military Atheists will likely increase the support of Christian Atheism. Time will tell. If and when they fail, a new interest in actual science will emerge. Currently most of the interest in "science" is nothing but a childlike and very misguided faith in science. The actual science has found increasing evidence that there must have been an intelligent designer. That "there is no scientific evidence of a god" is not science. It is a political and very popular idea though. Democrats, Republicans, Christian and Military Atheists do not want to believe the true science. Although many Republicans claim to believe in a god they do not, as we have just seen. When they fail to change anything without acknowledging one they will at last consider getting out of the way of the real science. That will be some time later. Does anyone else remember what Arlon said about definitions a while back? I do.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 12:16:44 GMT
I guess it's true. Apparently 'Beauty and the Beast' will have a gay character in it. Is Disney going to far in having a gay character? "There may have been a day in the now distant past, where the preachers and Evangelists would have gotten a nice bump from such histrionics; a time when they may have even convinced some Biblically illiterate, easily suggestible bystanders to go along with them. It may have been sound Church business at one time. But these self-righteous reservoirs are drying up, as the old folks in these communities die out and the buildings themselves grow dormant, with no new converts to fill them. They are quickly become dusty museums of a religious bigotry that thankfully fewer and fewer people feel like practicing. Today these protests are falling on deaf ears, by an educated, technologically connected generation, who see such obsessions with people’s personal plumbing all as much ado about nothing. They have no interest in a Church who doesn’t seem at all burdened to attend to the real suffering in the world, preferring to protest musicals, out terrified teenagers, and police public bathrooms for nonexistent boogeymen. From here.Personally speaking, I haven't yet seen a Disney film which isn't at least partly gay, or kitsch. That's not a complaint, just an observation. This is especially true of those films which are musicals or in which the traditional heterosexual parent model is broken or missing.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 8, 2017 12:18:45 GMT
There is a great deal of difference between a man loving another man, and a man getting arroused by feet. Fetishes are commonly linked to sexual desires with objects or specific parts of the body whereas a homosexual is attracted to a person of a similar sex. A homosexual man can have a foot fetish, as can a heterosexual man...but a heterosexual man cannot have a homosexual fetish. That just wouldn't make sense. Polygamy is a whole other bag of worms. But it is also not a fetish, nor a sexuality. All right, but perhaps a better comparison is men who are attracted to beasts. Would they be given special protection? If not why not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 12:20:23 GMT
I never got what "too far" means in that context. I mean, what's the danger here? That even kids will wind up thinking of gay people as normal? Oh, the horror! Just think, if that went on then sooner or later everyone would wind up treating everyone as normal! We'd be in a real pickle then, for sure! Oh come on! Please homosexuals make up your mind - do you want to be special, precious and rare ir do you want to be everyone everywhere? Oh look, you've invented an attitude and applied it to a whole group of people. What a shock to see you expressing bigotry. Homosexuals are every bit as normal as you are. Most of them are more normal, since they don't tend to be pathological liars with a victimhood fantasy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 12:24:16 GMT
You love to say this, but when asked you never, ever provide any such evidence. Therefore, I conclude that this is something that actually just wish were true.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 8, 2017 12:25:40 GMT
I always knew Winnie the Pooh and Piglet were sordid pervy partners! That's why Tigger was my favourite. Mary Whitehouse made a similar observation back in the 1970s about Noddy and Big Ears. At least Winnie the Pooh and Piglet didn't live in the same house and sleep together.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 12:33:56 GMT
I always knew Winnie the Pooh and Piglet were sordid pervy partners! That's why Tigger was my favourite. Mary Whitehouse made a similar observation back in the 1970s about Noddy and Big Ears. At least Winnie the Pooh and Piglet didn't live in the same house and sleep together. Not forgetting the claims made about one of the Teletubbies a while back ....
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 8, 2017 14:34:38 GMT
There is a great deal of difference between a man loving another man, and a man getting arroused by feet. Fetishes are commonly linked to sexual desires with objects or specific parts of the body whereas a homosexual is attracted to a person of a similar sex. A homosexual man can have a foot fetish, as can a heterosexual man...but a heterosexual man cannot have a homosexual fetish. That just wouldn't make sense. Polygamy is a whole other bag of worms. But it is also not a fetish, nor a sexuality. All right, but perhaps a better comparison is men who are attracted to beasts. Would they be given special protection? If not why not? That is not a better comparison either. We do not grant beasts the same rights we do humans in our society.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 8, 2017 14:37:44 GMT
All right, but perhaps a better comparison is men who are attracted to beasts. Would they be given special protection? If not why not? Could you please make your own thread then go act stupid in that one?
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Mar 8, 2017 14:44:17 GMT
That's what I'm saying. You claim that someone isn't normal but in the same breath you can't even define what normal is. I'm just saying I don't think you have the leverage here regarding this label. Homosexuality itself is not a political movement, but if you are speaking to the rallies and the organizations that are involved in the interest of the homosexual people then sure. But homosexuals have also been one of the few groups of people that are still oppressed or denied similar rights to heterosexual people in so many countries that how can you blame them? Homosexuals are simply men with a particular sexual kink.Why sre they any more deserving of special consideration and rights greater than say for foot fetishists or polygamists? Why is it only male homosexuals who drive you into such a frothing rage, Ada?
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 8, 2017 14:49:06 GMT
That's the thing, isn't it? Like almost any large group of people there are some hat wish to be special, some that just want to blend into the background, some that are mean, some nice. With any decent sized group there's really no collective thought. But if you aren't sure what "normal" means, how can you say someone is not? That doesn't make much sense now, does it? Seriously what does normal mean? (It is not my word) Are you trying to say that homosexuality is not the loudest most aggressively publicity-seeking political movement of the C21? in this case, normal means being through out the entire planet whether your christian agenda likes it or not.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Mar 8, 2017 15:32:58 GMT
I dont see how its really an issue. Hes gay. Thats fine. Who cares?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 16:06:54 GMT
I'm all about LGBT rights, but this one is just a bit weird to me...
... seriously, why?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 8, 2017 17:15:34 GMT
For those who weren't completely blind to subtext, the character was basically gay in the animated version too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 17:33:08 GMT
There is a great deal of difference between a man loving another man, and a man getting arroused by feet. Fetishes are commonly linked to sexual desires with objects or specific parts of the body whereas a homosexual is attracted to a person of a similar sex. A homosexual man can have a foot fetish, as can a heterosexual man...but a heterosexual man cannot have a homosexual fetish. That just wouldn't make sense. Polygamy is a whole other bag of worms. But it is also not a fetish, nor a sexuality. All right, but perhaps a better comparison is men who are attracted to beasts. Would they be given special protection? If not why not? No. Because beasts are incapable of consenting, which most people consider to be a rather important aspect of a relationship.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 8, 2017 17:54:04 GMT
Your moos say you can't consent but your eyes say touch my udders...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 18:01:55 GMT
I own shares in Disney, and I think this may be a poor commercial decision if countries like Russia ban the film, and Christians boycott it elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 8, 2017 18:06:26 GMT
I own shares in Disney, and I think this may be a poor commercial decision if countries like Russia ban the film, and Christians boycott it elsewhere. Disney will be fine Geez... You would think this was a love story between Beast & Gaston. The character is totally inconsequential and meant to be harmless while appeasing gay rights groups. It's a win win and no American company should worry about what those hoodlums in Russia want.
|
|