Would you like to se an gay/lesbian couple in a Disney film?

[Super Aurora]

Disney should make an animated movie featuring this guy, HARD GAY:













he's pretty badass.

[Linden]

I realise that it takes a lot of guts to be openly gay/lesbian, and I understand that it's difficult, what with all the degrading looks/comments. I even respect homosexuals for standing up for what they believe in. But I still think that what they believe in is wrong. Does that make sense?

Can you say why you think it is wrong?

I think it's wrong because I'm a Christian, and I believe the Bible when it says homosexuality is wrong. But just because I believe homosexuality is sinful, it does not mean I view gays/lesbians different than anyone else. Everyone sins. I'm not trying to start a theological debate here, so please don't go attacking the Bible or anything.

Also, DisneyDuster, I do think having a gay/lesbian character or protagonist would alienate audiences more than having a black protagonist. Most people are no longer racist (at least they say they aren't), whereas a lot of people still openly denounce homosexuality. A lot of religions are against homosexuality, and while the edges of somes religions (like Christianity) get more liberal and decide that homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality, there will always be a sizeable section that will not conform. True, there will always be racists that won't conform, but not as many, I think.

EDIT: Oh dear, SuperAurora. I don't think that would be the natural, unforced story everyone on here's looking for.

[Disney Duster]

Ah. And that is your only reason. Of course. Because I wondered what good reason you had that you thought it was actually wrong. Well, Disney films aren't run by the Bible.

I'm just lettin' ya know I'm a Christian who loves God and Jesus and believes God's word is in the Bible...somewhere. But it's been changed by people over the years, and I'm not sure if it's original writers didn't do anything to God's word. The Bible frobids a lot of things that Christians no longer consider sins today. When so many people commit suicide because they are gay but believe it's wrong, because they find they can't change how God made them, gay, then I can't think God really does forbid it, when they're killing themselves for not being able to be gay. Gay people are miserable when they can't act on how God made them, and I don't think God wants them to be miserable. I'm a Christian, and, yes, I too am gay. Faith is based on what you feel and believe, and I feel and believe that God loves me as my gay self. I feel his love and wanting me to be happy, and having romantic love with another boy like me will make me happy.

Jesus said the golden rule is 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you' and that that is the rule from which all other rules come from. That, I do feel, is God's word, and me acting on my homosexuality is definately still following that.

[pinkrenata]

I have very little patience for discussions that become never-ending arguments filled with personal attacks. I don't care what side you are on; everyone is capable of stating one's beliefs in a way that does not alienate and/or ruffle the feathers of others. In fact, I think that a number of people in this discussion have been choosing their words in a manner that will cause offense to others, and that is just plain unacceptable. And, get this: if somebody does say something you don't like, suck it up and deal with it. Sure, stand up for what you believe in -- I'm not asking you to back down. But you probably aren't going to change others' minds by getting into a fury and picking a fight.

So, yeah. Please, let's grow up. And, let's recognize the fact that this is an <i>online</i> community that spends a good deal of time discussing hypothetical situations. It's really not worth getting this worked up.

Sorry if I seem tough -- I just call it like I see it.

[Linden]

Ah. And that is your only reason. Of course. Because I wondered what good reason you had that you thought it was actually wrong. Well, Disney films aren't run by the Bible.

I know quite well that Disney isn't run by the Bible, and I never implied that it was. The point of this thread is if you would like to see gays/lesbians in Disney movies. I simply said I would not and stated my reasons.

I'm just lettin' ya know I'm a Christian who loves God and Jesus and believes God's word is in the Bible...somewhere. But it's been changed by people over the years, and I'm not sure if it's original writers didn't do anything to God's word. The Bible frobids a lot of things that Christians no longer consider sins today. When so many people commit suicide because they are gay but believe it's wrong, because they find they can't change how God made them, gay, then I can't think God really does forbid it, when they're killing themselves for not being able to be gay. Gay people are miserable when they can't act on how God made them, and I don't think God wants them to be miserable. I'm a Christian, and, yes, I too am gay. Faith is based on what you feel and believe, and I feel and believe that God loves me as my gay self. I feel his love and wanting me to be happy, and having romantic love with another boy like me will make me happy.

Jesus said the golden rule is 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you' and that that is the rule from which all other rules come from. That, I do feel, is God's word, and me acting on my homosexuality is definately still following that.

Regarding the Bible, it actually has been changed very little over the centuries. Since manuscripts exist dating from just decades after Christ, this is verifiable. Also, Jesus says that the greatest commandment is "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the geat and foremost commandment." ASV (normally I'd use NKJV, but I'm borrowing my mom's right now). The Golden Rule is also very important (2nd most important, according to Jesus). But I'm really getting off topic. This is why I didn't want to have a theological debate. I disagree with the reasoning in the rest of the rest of the post as well, but that's also getting into theological issues. If you want we could set up a different thread in Off-Topic to discuss it further? I wonder how long that thread would go before being locked...

pinkrenata, I agree with you. I'm trying to phrase everything respectfully, but some people aren't taking this issue seriously enough.

[phan258]

I'm scared to even set foot in this topic, but I can't let that "whiny white people" comment slide. I'm white, and occasionally whiny, but certainly not all the time, and I have zero issues with homosexuality. So yeah, Stop Think & Drop the Generalizations, y'all.

Bigotry comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Pretty ironic, if you think about it.

[BellesPrince]

Duster, you are just way off the mark with your comments. I realise you're just being emotive about a subject which is obviously very important to you, but you have no right to be so abusive and rude to people.

That's the last I'm going to post in here, because I'm not going to descend to your level.

[Super Aurora]

I have very little patience for discussions that become never-ending arguments filled with personal attacks. I don't care what side you are on; everyone is capable of stating one's beliefs in a way that does not alienate and/or ruffle the feathers of others. In fact, I think that a number of people in this discussion have been choosing their words in a manner that will cause offense to others, and that is just plain unacceptable. And, get this: if somebody does say something you don't like, suck it up and deal with it. Sure, stand up for what you believe in -- I'm not asking you to back down. But you probably aren't going to change others' minds by getting into a fury and picking a fight.

So, yeah. Please, let's grow up. And, let's recognize the fact that this is an <i>online</i> community that spends a good deal of time discussing hypothetical situations. It's really not worth getting this worked up.

Sorry if I seem tough -- I just call it like I see it.

Way to go man! That's the right attitude!
You guys should just Chill, relax and enjoy yourself.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Disney Duster, I don't disagree with some of the points you've made and I am in no way homophobic, but I just don't believe that the subject of homosexuality would be a good subject for a Disney film at this moment in time. Disney are criticised simply for accomodating gay people at their theme parks so I don't believe the the time is right for them to tackle such a subject in their films. You have said that you are gay and you clearly love Disney films and characters so do you think Disney need to use gay characters to appeal directly to gay members of their audience when you have such affection for them regardless of this? I know that's not what you were trying to say but Disney films have a universal appeal to people for all manner of different reasons so is it truly a necessity for Disney to tackle that subject in such a direct way and face some kind of backlash? Who knows what will happen in the future but for me, the uproar caused by Vince Vaughan describing a car as gay in The Dilemma proves that the film industry in general still has things to learn about what can be deemed as offensive in regards to their attitudes to and portrayals of homosexuality. While I think that this particular incident was hyped up by the media, it also makes me think what the reaction would be to Disney announcing an animated film where the central characters are gay. Not because that would be wrong, but because I think it would be too big a departure from the normal theme of Disney films to not attract criticism and controversy.

[Prince Edward]

Duster, you are just way off the mark with your comments. I realise you're just being emotive about a subject which is obviously very important to you, but you have no right to be so abusive and rude to people.

That's the last I'm going to post in here, because I'm not going to descend to your level.

No right to be so abusive and rude? I think gay people know how it's like to be treated abusive and rude. If "fighting back" when they hear that people are talking about them in a negative way is abusive and rude, then you should perhaps go to the root of the problem. That is off course all the people that do not tolerate gays because they have, for some twisted reasons unknown, made up their minds that gay people are "wrong" and should not be treated or viewed upon the same way as "normal" people.

"Descend to Disney Dusters level"? What excatly do you consider way off about his remarks? Abusive and rude? Disney Duster feels attacked off course, who would not if other people told you that they think your whole excistense is wrong and "sinful"? To Disney Duster deffence tough, I must say that he has not said anything else than that he wants to be himself without beeing jugded by others for beeing so.

If people today had treated Christians, Jews, Muslims or "non-white" people like gay people are beeing treated, it would have been called racism and non acceptable. But people can think that they belive gay people are sinful/wrong/etc and say it loud to, and get away with it by covering themselves and their prejudice and contempt for other human beeings behind their "religion".

Ah, so some people wrote a book a while back and other people have altered it throw history, and it is full on nonsense and terrible ways to look upon and treat other humans. Believing that this fairytale book speaks "the truth" gives people today the right to tell other people that they are "sinful", and at the same time say that they have "nothing against gay people". How can gays respond to that? And when they do, they are beeing called rude and abusive, for wanting to be respected? Treating other humans like their not good enough based on something like gender, color or sexual orientation is intolerant. I would have thought that watching Frollo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame would have thaught us all something about bigotry and how to treat and not to treat our fellow humans.

[Scarred4life]

Prince Edward, bravo.

[Goliath]

I would not agree with having gay/lesbian characters. Now before I, too, am accused of being homophobic , I'll clear everything up by saying I'm not. Just because I disagree with homosexuality does not mean I'm afraid of it or repulsed by it. It simply means I believe it's wrong. I realise that it takes a lot of guts to be openly gay/lesbian, and I understand that it's difficult, what with all the degrading looks/comments. I even respect homosexuals for standing up for what they believe in. But I still think that what they believe in is wrong. Does that make sense?

No.

No, that makes no sense at all.

Now, I'm sure this has been adressed when I wasn't here, but I'm still going to respond, because I feel this can't be adressed enough. What you say doesn't make sense, because homosexuality is not something one "believes", as you call it. It's not a religion, nor is it a philosophy or a 'lifestyle'. Being homosexual is something one is, not an idea one believes in. That gets us to the second reason why your reply didn't make sense. Since homosexuality is not a lifestyle, a belief or a choice, you can't "disagree" with it. You can't disagree with the way somebody is. That would be like 'disagreeing' with somebody being black. A person is who he/she is.

I think it's wrong because I'm a Christian, and I believe the Bible when it says homosexuality is wrong. But just because I believe homosexuality is sinful, it does not mean I view gays/lesbians different than anyone else. Everyone sins. I'm not trying to start a theological debate here, so please don't go attacking the Bible or anything.

Yes, you did try to start a theological debate, otherwise you wouldn't have brought this up. But thanks for reminding everybody why following ancient fairy tales made up by clueless desert people is potentially dangerous and corrupts your thinking. We wouldn't have this problem if it weren't for religion.

The Bible also says eating shrimp is wrong. The Bible also says shaving is wrong. The Bible also says working on the sabbath is wrong. On the other hand, the Bible says slavery is good. The Bible also says polygamy is good. The Bible says incest and rape can be bought off. The Bible really has a lot of batshit things to say. Nobody follows those anymore. Except for that one tiny passing remark about one man lying with another man. Why would that be? It wouldn't have anything to do with searching a reason to discriminate against people, now would it? As we know, religions are very tolerant....

Regarding the Bible, it actually has been changed very little over the centuries.

Like most Christians, you obviously know *very* little about the origins of your own Holy Book. The Bible is not one book; it's a collection of many different books, collected over the course of many centuries, written by a great deal of different people, most of whom we can only guess about. A great deal of books that were initially considered 'holy' have later been deemed 'not worthy' by an ensemble of early church leaders, who dictated it to the common people --who couldn't even read their Bibles, since they were all in Latin. (If the people could read at all.) The Bible as we know it today, was formed on the opinion of a handful of early church leaders, that's human beings. Not God or any divine spirit. And the fact that Catholics use a different Bible than do Protestants is a daily reminder of this fact.

Somebody should really remind all the Catholic priests that homosexuality is considered a 'sin' in their religion; maybe they would keep their hands of the altar boys then.

Oh, and at first I was neutral on wanting to see a gay/lesbian couple in a Disney movie, but because of replies like yours, now I *really* want to see a gay couple on a Disney movie. Because obviously, there's a lot of educating to do and Disney films may help a bit with that.

When so many people commit suicide because they are gay but believe it's wrong, because they find they can't change how God made them, gay, then I can't think God really does forbid it, when they're killing themselves for not being able to be gay. Gay people are miserable when they can't act on how God made them, and I don't think God wants them to be miserable.

"I would never worship a homophobic God", said archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man who from experience knows what it's like to be oppressed and have your right taken away because of who you are.

Jesus said the golden rule is 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you' and that that is the rule from which all other rules come from. That, I do feel, is God's word, and me acting on my homosexuality is definately still following that.

Jesus also said: "Those who is without sin can cast the first stone." But that's the New Testament part, you know, the happy part. Most conservative Christians aren't too fond of that. It can't justify their hatred and discrimination. The Jesus from the New Testamant is really a soft pacifist treehugging liberal. Conservative Christians like the Old Testament much better, with a sociopathic God who kills everybody who doesn't agree with him.

At an early age, children are very easily influenced, and I don't think they are old enough to make an informed choice at that age - too readily going with what is considered to be cool or hip or trendy. If a gay relationship is promoted in a film in that way, then that could influence them before they are old enough to find their own way in life.

What I just said to Linden also goes for you, BellesPrince. I'm sure your post has been answered as well (I didn't read that far yet), but that doesn't matter. It's a dumb thing to say that people "choose" to be homosexual and thus it's a dumb thing to say children will be "influenced".

To be honest, it's just as reactionary from the gay rights lobbyists who are calling out for such a thing as it is for those of us who don't feel this should happen.

Replace 'gay' in your sentence with 'Civil Rights' and we're back in the early 1960's again.

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?

- Bob Dylan, 'Blowing in the wind'

^ I seriously still think you may be in the closet and don't want to come to grips with your own sexuality.

An adult straight man who goes to Disney theme parks to chat with the princesses and makes desktop pictures of actors dressed up as princesses...? I wanna say you're onto something here, but I would hate to affirm such a stereotype. I mean, *I* hate it when people say The Little Mermaid and Kim Possible are for girls only and that any man who loves that must be gay...


The same goes for The_Iceflash, with his usage of the word 'agenda'. Forget the agenda. There is no agenda. The idea that their is an 'agenda' is an invention of reactionary far-right political commentators and politicians. Depecting gay people in film is just about including a large segment of the population. Or is showing a heterosexual couple about 'pushing the straight agenda'?

I also find it funny that homophobic comments are always announced with the phrase "I'm not homophobic.... BUT...."

[Linden]

If people today had treated Christians, Jews, Muslims or "non-white" people like gay people are beeing treated, it would have been called racism and non acceptable. But people can think that they belive gay people are sinful/wrong/etc and say it loud to, and get away with it by covering themselves and their prejudice and contempt for other human beeings behind their "religion".

Ah, so some people wrote a book a while back and other people have altered it throw history, and it is full on nonsense and terrible ways to look upon and treat other humans. Believing that this fairytale book speaks "the truth" gives people today the right to tell other people that they are "sinful", and at the same time say that they have "nothing against gay people". How can gays respond to that? And when they do, they are beeing called rude and abusive, for wanting to be respected? Treating other humans like their not good enough based on something like gender, color or sexual orientation is intolerant. I would have thought that watching Frollo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame would have thaught us all something about bigotry and how to treat and not to treat our fellow humans.

I'm assuming this is referring (in part, at least) to me? You're upset that I politely said (when asked) that I do not believe that homosexuality is right because I believe in the Bible and am a Christian? I understand that you obviously dislike Christianity, but attacking a religion (calling the Bible "a book of fairytales full of nonsense and terrible ways to look upon and treat other humans") is almost the same as attacking a person for being gay/lesbian? When I say this, I don't mean that homosexuality is a religion. It isn't, of course. I just mean that people hold religions and the opinion that homosexuality is right equally dearly. That was a clunky sentence, but I couldn't think of another non-offensive way of putting it.

Anyway, just saying that you think homosexuality is wrong is not "bigotry," as you call it. It's an opinion. It does not mean that you treat GLBTs any differently than people of other sexual orientations (although, unfortunately, GLBTs are frequently discriminated against by people opposed to homosexuality. However, this shouldn't be the case. I'm firmly against any discrimination against GLBT and think they should be treated just as anyone else). It is possible for me to believe that homosexuality is a sin and "have nothing against" GLBTs because I sin too.

I admit, I got a little carried away with the Bible references in my previous post, but I hate to see the Bible misquoted, since it's misquoted all the time. Don't worry, though, I won't be stuffing the Bible down your throat. I'll just bring it up as the reasons for my opinions.

Okay, now on to Goliath. As I said above, I don't think homosexuality is a religion. In my sentence "but I still think that what they believe in is wrong," "what" did not refer to homosexuality, but rather the opinion that homosexuality is right. I do believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that does not me bad. There are instances of homosexuals giving up on homosexuality, whereas there are no instances of a black person spontaneously turning white (plastic surgery doesn't count, so please don't bring up Michael Jackson). So, I don't agree that homosexuality is the same thing as race.

I don't agree with a lot of what BellesPrince is saying, but I don't see what the point is of saying he's in-the-closet-gay. It seems like you and DisneyDuster are trying to make him angry or get back at him.

And, honestly, I'm not homophobic, since I'm not afraid of or repulsed by homosexuality. I simply think it's wrong, for reasons I've stated before. I don't want to offend anyone, just state my opinions truthfully yet politely.

EDIT: I totally forgot to reply to this part of your post.

Like most Christians, you obviously know *very* little about the origins of your own Holy Book. The Bible is not one book; it's a collection of many different books, collected over the course of many centuries, written by a great deal of different people, most of whom we can only guess about. A great deal of books that were initially considered 'holy' have later been deemed 'not worthy' by an ensemble of early church leaders, who dictated it to the common people --who couldn't even read their Bibles, since they were all in Latin. (If the people could read at all.) The Bible as we know it today, was formed on the opinion of a handful of early church leaders, that's human beings. Not God or any divine spirit. And the fact that Catholics use a different Bible than do Protestants is a daily reminder of this fact.

I am very aware that the Bible is made up of 66 books (for Protestants, at least). I've read all of them. That doesn't mean I can't refer to the Bible as singular. It makes it easier (and for some, less confusing). I am also aware that the books of the Bible were "ratified" at the Synod of Rome. And, yes, the members of the council were indeed human. However, the books themselves (I was referring specifically to the Gospels in my last post, but the same is true of the Old Testament and the rest of the New have hardly been changed at all. The manuscripts found have been in keeping with present versions). I do agree with you that most Christians know nothing about the Bible. That's the main reason Christians have such a bad reputation, because they don't follow what it says. Also, thank you very much for showing the courtesy of capitalising the Bible. I also appreciate that you wanted to tell me about the origins of the Bible. I know that sounds annoying, but I'm serious. Too few people know about it. Oh, and regarding the Catholic priests, I agree. If they had been following the Bible those poor altar boys would be having better lives.

[Goliath]

Anyway, just saying that you think homosexuality is wrong is not "bigotry," as you call it. It's an opinion.

Actually, it IS bigotry. Centuries ago, people justified slavery and colonialism with the Bible. (Bible condones slavery.) Nowadays, people justify bigotry against homosexuals with the Bible. No difference.

It is possible for me to believe that homosexuality is a sin and "have nothing against" GLBTs because I sin too.

No, it's not. It's not possible. Science has alreay proven time and again that homosexuality is not a choice but something one is born with. Of course because you're relgious, science must mean nothing to you. But then tell me, why do we see homosexuality in the animal world all the time? (Like with gay dolphins and gay penguins.) Are those animals sinnin too, or have they watched the wrong sitcoms?

Okay, now on to Goliath. As I said above, I don't think homosexuality is a religion. In my sentence "but I still think that what they believe in is wrong," "what" did not refer to homosexuality, but rather the opinion that homosexuality is right. I do believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that does not me bad.

No, it just makes you look stupid and devoid of any scientific basis.

There are instances of homosexuals giving up on homosexuality,

Oh, you really believe that? Hey, you know what, there is a member on THIS VERY FORUM, 'Jack Skellington', who has to FLEE his country because it's dangerous for him to be openly gay there. He has avoided being hanged or stoned to death (I believe that's what they do in Dubai) by PRETENDING to his family that he visited a psychiatrist who "cured" him. He has to keep pretending until he's somewhere safe. So why don't you take your bullshit and shove it up your...

Here's hoping you will be enlightened once, from a non-gay atheïst.

[Super Aurora]

There are instances of homosexuals giving up on homosexuality,

Which is most likely so they don't get the shit beating out of them or ridiculed. Go as Jack Skeleton, a member on this forum.

whereas there are no instances of a black person spontaneously turning white (plastic surgery doesn't count, so please don't bring up Michael Jackson). So, I don't agree that homosexuality is the same thing as race.

uuuhh actually he turned white due to a skin pigment disease he has, not plastic surgery. So in other words he was born with it.

[Goliath]

EDIT: I totally forgot to reply to this part of your post.

I am very aware that the Bible is made up of 66 books (for Protestants, at least). I've read all of them. That doesn't mean I can't refer to the Bible as singular. It makes it easier (and for some, less confusing). I am also aware that the books of the Bible were "ratified" at the Synod of Rome. And, yes, the members of the council were indeed human.

You didn't forget anything, I just kept editing to counter more and more bullshit. But okay, so you finally admit the Bible *was* altered much during the centuries. Thanks for proving my point.

However, the books themselves (I was referring specifically to the Gospels in my last post, but the same is true of the Old Testament and the rest of the New have hardly been changed at all. The manuscripts found have been in keeping with present versions).

Uhm... the Bible you're reading now is a translation of a translation of a translation of yet another translation... which was also translated. And are you familiar with the phrase 'lost in translation'?

Oh, and if more people would follow the Bible, like you say, we would still be stoning people to death for working on the sabbath...

[Linden]

Goliath, we're really hi-jacking this topic with a debate about the Bible and the morality of homosexuality. It's supposed to be about gays and lesbians in Disney movies. Do you want to discuss this in another thread? Also, please be civil. I'm not insulting you, so please don't insult me.

And, yeah, I know about Jack Skellington. And I feel bad for him. But just because he pretended to be cured (understandably), does not mean that everyone else was pretending too.

Super Aurora, sorry about Michael Jackson. I guess I did hear about the pigment disease somewhere, but I forgot. I've never been too into Michael Jackson. That does raise my opinion of him somewhat that he wasn't the one to change his skin colour.

[Goliath]

Goliath, we're really hi-jacking this topic with a debate about the Bible and the morality of homosexuality. It's supposed to be about gays and lesbians in Disney movies. Do you want to discuss this in another thread? Also, please be civil. I'm not insulting you, so please don't insult me.

You're insulting a great many people on UD, by saying they're sinning.

And, yeah, I know about Jack Skellington. And I feel bad for him. But just because he pretended to be cured (understandably), does not mean that everyone else was pretending too.

It's best we don't further discuss this subject. You're really pissing me off here. You know what's going on in South-Africa? Lesbian women are getting GANG-RAPED by men who believe they will "cure" these women this way. I'm *obviously* not saying this is something you condone, but your reasoning is *exactly* the kind of reasoning used by these men and the people 'Jack' has to fear. You and your religion are providing them with the ammunition they need.

[Linden]

You're insulting a great many people on UD, by saying they're sinning.

Just because I believe homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't mean anyone else has to. It shouldn't be offensive.

You know what's going on in South-Africa? Lesbian women are getting GANG-RAPED by men who believe they will "cure" these women this way. I'm *obviously* not saying this is something you condone, but your reasoning is *exactly* the kind of reasoning used by these men and the people 'Jack' has to fear. You and your religion are providing them with the ammunition they need.

WHAT? With my religion, I'm giving South Africans ammunition to gang-rape lesbian women?? I really don't follow your reasoning there. How is my reasoning the same? I haven't even said anything on my opinions of "curing" homosexuals. Just that there have been instances of GLBTs giving up homosexuality.

[Chaz]

I can't believe it's 2011 and people still believe that homosexuality can be "cured."