Frozen

[DiFabio]

Very eloquent and forthright my dear Lejuan.

 

[EVILFACE]

Which bathroom does this Frozen chick use?

 

[DiFabio]

The one at Target.

 

[crows]

 

[devilof76]

This is why it would take guts.

 

[karamazov80]

This is one of those things, where once it happens for the first time, I don't think it's going to be seen as a big deal and people won't get as outraged about it. Homosexuality is a reality of the world we live in. And from my point of view, it's not a bad thing that we should be afraid of, or afraid of having our kids exposed to, as I think of violence, graphic sexuality, hatred and exploitation, etc. are. Though I'm sure many would much prefer to see their kids exposed to just about anything over the idea that there are LGBT people in this world. Kids won't "turn gay" because they know that sometimes dude like dudes, etc. In fact, because younger kids haven't built up biases against this as many adults have, they will be more understanding and just integrate this into their worldview. In my opinion, this is an inevitable change western society will go through, just as we've changed attitudes toward gender in general (somewhat) and toward race and ethnicity (somewhat). The actions of the U.S. Supreme Court and broad U.S. public opinion toward gay marriage (public opinion supporting gay marriage has gone up 20 percentage points in 15 years) reinforces this. It's not a question of if it will happen, but when. Like it or not.

Folks keep suggesting that this is something that would only be used to promote an agenda, and that it would feel staged and artificial. But there was a time when folks must have thought that about having Sidney Portier in movies. We'll get to the point eventually where it's not seen as a big deal, because honestly, it isn't a big deal. And folks will think, "oh, she's a lesbian" the same way they now think, "oh, she's got red hair."

But no way in the world Disney is going to go that route right now, for reasons mentioned here. Elsa probably is lesbian, which in itself speaks to how far society has changed from the days of Snow White, and Disney probably won't tell us anything to the contrary. But nor do I think they will confirm that.

 

[Khev]

Folks keep suggesting that this is something that would only be used to promote an agenda, and that it would feel staged and artificial. But there was a time when folks must have thought that about having Sidney Portier in movies.

Except the Bible doesn't say that being black is a sin. So that will never be a valid comparison. However, yes, you're right, depictions of homosexuality will become more and more commonplace as the years go on to the point that I have no doubt that one day we'll even see major heroes in family films practicing it just as we've become accustomed to superheroes like Iron Man and Batman (and even Superman) practicing heterosexual fornication on screen for many years now. Will people who believe that it is immoral behavior like it? No. Will it continue anyway? Unfortunately yes. Does that make it some awesome progressive thing like equal rights for women and blacks? Heck no.

 

[EVILFACE]

Arrow already has. The character Curtis Holt, who I think is Mister Terrific, on the show is gay, has shown intimate moments with his partner and is black. He's not a top list character, but still.

I don't think Disney would anything like this in one of their major theatrical animated movies.

 

[karamazov80]

Well, the thing about the Bible is that interpretations of what is written vary wildly over time, and across contexts. Of course, there are some abhorrent things in there that people ignore, downplay, or interpret creatively now because it's politically and socially undesirable, like how women can be treated, etc. But putting that aside, it's a genetic predisposition. You don't choose to be gay, as you would choose to rob a bank or exploit someone for selfish purposes. If you did, no one would choose it. And for that reason, I think we will see fewer and fewer people who treat it as something evil or immoral. But don't take my word for it:

https://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Among white mainline protestants, support for same sex marriage (which is even a higher hurdle than acceptance of homesexuality) increased 17 percentage points in the last 15 years. Among Catholics, it increased 24 percentage points (support among this group today is higher for same sex marriage than it was for politically unaffiliated respondents in 2001). Among white evangelicals, it increased 11 percentage points. The only group where this has remained fairly stable is black protestants, but even there it is increasing. Change is happening all over.

Arrow already has. The character Curtis Holt, who I think is Mister Terrific, on the show is gay, has shown intimate moments with his partner and is black. He's not a top list character, but still.

I don't think Disney would anything like this in one of their major theatrical animated movies.

Yeah, we've had gay characters in adult shows and movies for a long while now, the question is about when we may start seeing it in kids' shows. I think there was one episode of a PBS cartoon that discussed it and people freaked out a couple years ago. But I have seen nada in the shows I watch with the kiddies. At least, not explicitly. Not so sure about Spongebob and Patrick. . .or Bert and Ernie. . .

 

[devilof76]

I knew this would get good.

 

[Khev]

Well, the thing about the Bible is that interpretations of what is written vary wildly over time, and across contexts.

Not true, unless you mean these types of discussions where people who really have no clue what it says quote what they think other people who didn't take the time to study it said. The Bible as the Word of God is not some thing that evolves or changes over time. The original Hebrew and Greek texts are what they are, they're either God's infallible Word or they aren't. "Well I believe they aren't." That's fine, no one has to believe but if you throw the Bible out then you're left with nothing but moral relativism.

Of course, there are some abhorrent things in there that people ignore, downplay, or interpret creatively now because it's politically and socially undesirable, like how women can be treated, etc.

Again, that's simply incorrect. Now if you want to say that the Bible depicts acts of sin, well then yes, of course it does. But it doesn't condone it and it's funny that you mention the treatment of women because it preached equality between the sexes thousands of years before it became commonplace (if you can call it that) in society.

But putting that aside, it's a genetic predisposition. You don't choose to be gay, as you would choose to rob a bank or exploit someone for selfish purposes.

You can choose to act on any impulse. I can kiss a guy, rob a bank, *or kiss my best friend's wife.* See that's the thing. People like to make homosexuality out to be this big "we're all perfect, but you're GAY, dun, dun dunn!" No, it's just another sinful impulse among hundreds that we all have every day. Now is it something we're all predisposed toward? No. Just like some people have tempers, some don't, some people are kleptomaniacs, some aren't, some are addicted to heterosexual fornication, and some just aren't. For some reason it's become this big thing that for ONLY homosexuality if you're born that way then it's okay to practice. But it's no different than us straight guys lusting after chicks, picturing our friend's wives naked, wanting to have affairs with them (and maybe actually doing it, etc.) We're all a bunch of sexual deviants when you get down to it, the issue that Christians have with homosexuality is being told that we need to say that something wrong is actually something right.

It's no different than the bathtub scene in BvS. Did Clark and Lois do something legal? Yes. Were they following the impulses of their own brains? Yes. Does the Bible call that out as fornication? Yes. Was that really a good thing to put in a superhero movie? Well, some say yes and some say no, depending on your moral convictions. Now if you want to tell me that the bathtub scene was some awesome triumph of human rights on the level of Sidney Poitier winning an Oscar I'm going to say you've got to be kidding me.

 

[Khev]

I knew this would get good.

Yeah, and all it ever comes down to is do you think God knows what's best for society or do you think your own impulses and political correctness is what's best for society? That's all it ever comes down to. You've got God on one side, human impulses/political correctness on the other. And if you like God, no one on the PC side is going to pull you over, and if you like doing what you feel like doing above all else, you're going to clamp your ears when someone brings up the Word of God. Then if we aren't careful people on both sides get frustrated, start calling each other out as hypocrites, judgmental, perverts, intolerate, immoral, etc., etc., and nothing really changes.

I do think it would be good though if people who promote anti-Biblical practices like homosexuality just acknowledge "hey I'm just an anti-Bible guy. I think we should all just do what we want, the end." And folks who *do* follow the Bible should realize that no one, NO ONE, are the "good guys" compared to those "bad guys" who practice whatever behavior. Okay we all agree that ISIS and Nazis are bad or whatever. But so are we all when you get right down to it. Which is where Jesus comes in and he never ripped on "sinners" who didn't follow him, a good lesson for all Christians, in fact the only people who Jesus put in their place were those who claimed to be religious but misrepresented God.

 

[ironwez20]

Yeah, and all it ever comes down to is do you think God knows what's best for society or do you think your own impulses and political correctness is what's best for society? That's all it ever comes down to. You've got God on one side, human impulses/political correctness on the other. And if you like God, no one on the PC side is going to pull you over, and if you like doing what you feel like doing above all else, you're going to clamp your ears when someone brings up the Word of God. Then if we aren't careful people on both sides get frustrated, start calling each other out as hypocrites, judgmental, perverts, intolerate, immoral, etc., etc., and nothing really changes.

I do think it would be good though if people who promote anti-Biblical practices like homosexuality just acknowledge "hey I'm just an anti-Bible guy. I think we should all just do what we want, the end." And folks who *do* follow the Bible should realize that no one, NO ONE, are the "good guys" compared to those "bad guys" who practice whatever behavior. Okay we all agree that ISIS and Nazis are bad or whatever. But so are we all when you get right down to it. Which is where Jesus comes in and he never ripped on "sinners" who didn't follow him, a good lesson for all Christians, in fact the only people who Jesus put in their place were those who claimed to be religious but misrepresented God.

Couldn't of said it better. people are born with choices to make. The bible never said your evil for not believing, its the content of your actions that makes you good or bad.

 

[karamazov80]

A purely religious argument is fairly pointless and unwinnable, so I don't want to get into it much, except to say that there are many things in the Bible that are there, in all the major translations, that would not be viewed as acceptable by the vast majority of Christians. Unless you read it figuratively or selectively. Which many think is the way the Bible should be read, going back to the Earth being created in 6 days. Saying a child should be put to death if they "curse" or "smite" a parent, for example. How do you literally interpret that as God's word, and still be a part of mainstream society?

But I will say that I disagree strongly with your suggestion that anyone who supports gay rights is generically anti-Bible, and thinks people should do whatever they want to. The Bible, as I said before, is perceived differently by different people, believers and otherwise. Many Christians believe in evolution, given the preponderance of scientific evidence. But to do that of course, you can't take everything in the Bible literally. I personally do think people should do whatever they want to. . .so long as they aren't harming anyone else in the process (psychological distress being one sticky area here, of course). Sexual relations should be consensual. Stealing, violence toward others, pedophilia, these are all fundamentally different and wrong because they are causing substantial harm to others. So it's artificial to lump them together with two consenting gay/lesbian adults.

Going to the sex in the tub scene, that also reflects societal changes of course. There was a time when a married couple on TV had to be shown sleeping in different beds. Now we have Game of Thrones, and even on network sitcoms, insinuations of sex on shows like Big Bang Theory. Society has changed, and will continue to change. Some will see it as terrible, they are becoming more and more of the minority. But in some societies, yes, freedom to engage in sexual relations that they please, including heterosexual, pre-marriage sex, would be a kind of civil right they are being denied. In Saudi Arabia, for example. If you do that, you would be flogged publicly. For what? Doing something private and natural that hurts no one apart from the sensibilities of the extremely religious.

But I never said they should show Elsa and her partner getting it on. The question is whether a cartoon character could simply show a sexual preference for a person of the same gender. And that's where the civil rights question comes into play. How much should someone hide their true selves for the purposes of avoiding public shame, when the nature of their true selves leads to no real harm to anyone? This isn't the same as a person admitting they are attracted to young children or that they enjoy killing helpless animals. Kids should have a moral compass. But in this instance, the implication is not simply fighting against base impulses, but denying reality and potentially one's own true self. And that can be dangerous in the long run, as repression is a dangerous force. Look no further than all those Catholic priests.

 

[devilof76]

Yeah, and all it ever comes down to is do you think God knows what's best for society or do you think your own impulses and political correctness is what's best for society? That's all it ever comes down to. You've got God on one side, human impulses/political correctness on the other. And if you like God, no one on the PC side is going to pull you over, and if you like doing what you feel like doing above all else, you're going to clamp your ears when someone brings up the Word of God. Then if we aren't careful people on both sides get frustrated, start calling each other out as hypocrites, judgmental, perverts, intolerate, immoral, etc., etc., and nothing really changes.

I think it's a false alternative to say that the Word of God or hedonistic whim are the only moral options. The Word of God is the foundation of your moral law one. A moral code can be absolute without appealing to the supernatural. Subjectivist/relativist/nihilist is not the only secular option.

The great idea behind the founding of this country was that people would be free to follow their own conscience. By that standard, you are as free to believe in your sins as they are in theirs, and so long as neither is able to legislate their consciences, no one's values with be sacrificed to the special rights of another. Equality of conscience is what our fundamental law was meant to achieve, and I believe that nothing less is good for society.

 

[Khev]

A purely religious argument is fairly pointless and unwinnable, so I don't want to get into it much, except to say that there are many things in the Bible that are there, in all the major translations, that would not be viewed as acceptable by the vast majority of Christians. Unless you read it figuratively or selectively. Which many think is the way the Bible should be read, going back to the Earth being created in 6 days. Saying a child should be put to death if they "curse" or "smite" a parent, for example. How do you literally interpret that as God's word, and still be a part of mainstream society?

Because the Bible gives us all an "out," that's why. The "Law" was given in part to show that it's something we aren't capable of following. There's not a single Scripture in all the Bible that even hints that any parent actually followed through and killed a child who talked smack to them. What the Bible *does* say is "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." So that covers your mouthy kid. And your stealing, and your sexual fornication and everything else.

If you're ever going tell others what the Bible says I'd urge you to at least know the exact quotes and just as importantly the context of said quotes. Because Satan was big on twisting Scripture. He did it when he misquoted God's instructions to Eve about not eating the fruit and he did it when he tried to tempt Jesus in the desert.

Regarding either of us "winning" or changing the other person's mind, yeah, I'm with you, that's not gonna happen. Especially on a movie forum, being friends, T1 is better than T2 and all that good stuff.

Stealing, violence toward others, pedophilia, these are all fundamentally different and wrong because they are causing substantial harm to others.

Well here's the thing, God say that all sin is wrong and ultimately harmful. So you're asking me (or at least offering up the notion) to say "karamazov80 knows whats beneficial and harmful to me, my family, and society but God does not." And that's something I can't get behind. Because for every "T1 is better than T2" you offer up a "Deadpool is better than TFA" and I'm sorry but given your track record I'm just not rolling those dice.

So it's artificial to lump them together with two consenting gay/lesbian adults.

But therein lies yet another rub. "Consenting gay/lesbian adults." Why should adults get preferential treatment on who they choose to love? What about an adult and a kid? Where's the magic line where you can say with certainty that a kid even becomes an adult? Or let's just stick with easily identifiable adults. Say 30 year olds. So should a 30 year old man be allowed to marry his 25 year old sister? How about two brothers? They're grown and not hurting anyone right? Or a dude and his adult golden retriever? Once you say it's okay for one group then it gets awfully hard to say no to the others. And at some point you're either going to have to recognize that there's no moral right or wrong or that maybe, just maybe, whatever consenting adults want to do shouldn't be applauded, celebrated, or necessarily even legal.

 

[Centurion]

Someone mistakenly typed "Frozen" as the thread title.

My bad!

 

[Khev]

I think it's a false alternative to say that the Word of God or hedonistic whim are the only moral options. The Word of God is the foundation of your moral law one. A moral code can be absolute without appealing to the supernatural. Subjectivist/relativist/nihilist is not the only secular option.

The great idea behind the founding of this country was that people would be free to follow their own conscience. By that standard, you are as free to believe in your sins as they are in theirs, and so long as neither is able to legislate their consciences, no one's values with be sacrificed to the special rights of another. Equality of conscience is what our fundamental law was meant to achieve, and I believe that nothing less is good for society.

There is merit in your post and that's a tricky one isn't it? Protecting the conscience of citizens while not forcing them to act against said conscience but also not giving people so much freedom that they can run out and murder everyone.

 

[karamazov80]

But since you ask:

But therein lies yet another rub. "Consenting gay/lesbian adults." Why should adults get preferential treatment on who they choose to love? What about an adult and a kid? Where's the magic line where you can say with certainty that a kid even becomes an adult? Or let's just stick with easily identifiable adults. Say 30 year olds. So should a 30 year old man be allowed to marry his 25 year old sister?

Keeping in mind that I live in the south. . .if that's what they wanna do. Power to the freaks.

How about two brothers? They're grown and not hurting anyone right?

Same. Though it might now always turn out the way it was planned. . .

Or a dude and his adult golden retriever?

Negative. Dog can't give consent to something like that.

 

[Khev]

Negative. Dog can't give consent to something like that.

Wait, the dog giving consent is your only issue with that scenario??? You Southern freaks!

But yes, best to just leave it at