Frozen

[Xenoburger_]

I wasnt kidding about maleficent
It would be easier to make her gay instead of frozen

Isn't sleeping beauty under 18 too?

 

[crows]

You are right, Shes 16 but the sequel could take place 2 years later. Since that could be a problem.

 

[YoNoSe]

. . .

 

[DiFabio]

Why did you quote me again Xeno? I replied to your second post sincerely without snark. You've got two other people to respond to by the looks of it.


I don't care if people are gay. Someone's sexuality is their own business. I didn't care who ****ed what when it wasn't "the current year" and I don't care now. What two consenting adults do on their own time is their thing. Not everyone is going to accept it as a lifestyle with value that needs to be promoted though. For example, I think sodomy in general is pretty degenerate and I don't feel like gay couples should be allowed to raise/adopt children. If a business doesn't want to bake a cake for them or a religious organization doesn't want to be associated with them, I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm not your enemy, I just said that I think the "current year" thing is cliched and dumb. Of course I get the meaning behind it, I still think it's stupid, cliched usage. It'a a strawman argument, a cop out. It's like "hey, it's the current year, that thought process you have is conservative and quaint and needs to be forgotten you stupid **** lord". I don't like it, and I don't like John Oliver. Not all old fashioned, conservative ideas are in the wrong in my opinion. Start taking a sledge hammer to a few of them and the structure of society will fall apart.

 

[YoNoSe]

You've got two other people to respond to by the looks of it.

Supposedly I'm on ignore although I don't know why or who this dude is or was or whatever. Or how he sometimes responds to my posts with pissy comments if I'm on ignore. So I figured "**** it."

 

[crows]

Why did you quote me again Xeno? I replied to your second post sincerely without snark. You've got two other people to respond to by the looks of it.


I don't care if people are gay. Someone's sexuality is their own business. I didn't care who ****ed what when it wasn't "the current year" and I don't care now. What two consenting adults do on their own time is their thing. Not everyone is going to accept it as a lifestyle with value that needs to be promoted though. For example, I think sodomy in general is pretty degenerate and I don't feel like gay couples should be allowed to raise/adopt children. If a business doesn't want to bake a cake for them or a religious organization doesn't want to be associated with them, I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm not your enemy, I just said that I think the "current year" thing is cliched and dumb. Of course I get the meaning behind it, I still think it's stupid, cliched usage. It'a a strawman argument, a cop out. It's like "hey, it's the current year, that thought process you have is conservative and quaint and needs to be forgotten you stupid **** lord". I don't like it, and I don't like John Oliver. Not all old fashioned, conservative ideas are in the wrong in my opinion. Start taking a sledge hammer to a few of them and the structure of society will fall apart.

Wait.... U are saying you would rather have kids live in some horrible foster home than being adopted by two dads that could provide better shelter?

 

[DiFabio]

Eh, seems like he has a problem with everyone at some point on here. I still love him though. (No ****)

Wait.... U are saying you would rather have kids live in some horrible foster home than being adopted by two dads that could provide better shelter?

Don't bait me black mask. I know damn well by some of your lingo and posts that you frequent the same political discussion sites that I'm on from time to time. I'm sure you've seen the statistics of those "dads". The pedophilia reports among couples is too common for me to be comfortable with anytime soon.

 

[AIR]

Why did you quote me again Xeno? I replied to your second post sincerely without snark. You've got two other people to respond to by the looks of it.


I don't care if people are gay. Someone's sexuality is their own business. I didn't care who ****ed what when it wasn't "the current year" and I don't care now. What two consenting adults do on their own time is their thing. Not everyone is going to accept it as a lifestyle with value that needs to be promoted though. For example, I think sodomy in general is pretty degenerate and I don't feel like gay couples should be allowed to raise/adopt children. If a business doesn't want to bake a cake for them or a religious organization doesn't want to be associated with them, I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm not your enemy, I just said that I think the "current year" thing is cliched and dumb. Of course I get the meaning behind it, I still think it's stupid, cliched usage. It'a a strawman argument, a cop out. It's like "hey, it's the current year, that thought process you have is conservative and quaint and needs to be forgotten you stupid **** lord". I don't like it, and I don't like John Oliver. Not all old fashioned, conservative ideas are in the wrong in my opinion. Start taking a sledge hammer to a few of them and the structure of society will fall apart.

Why?
.

 

[crows]

Eh, seems like he has a problem with everyone at some point on here. I still love him though. (No ****)



Don't bait me black mask. I know damn well by some of your lingo and posts that you frequent the same political discussion sites that I'm on from time to time. I'm sure you've seen the statistics of those "dads".

Ok fair enough.

 

[devilof76]

I think a larger point is being missed here. Why the hell are they making a sequel? Every sequel to a Disney animated feature has been direct-to-dvd junk. I think the LGBT crusaders are lowering the representation bar. They're looking for fan fiction elevated to a commodity for the Mouse to exploit. Seems desperate. They already have a heroine in Elsa. It's not explicit, but it doesn't have to be. The story is still what it is, but as it stands, the themes are universally applicable (a feature of great art, as opposed to a propaganda reel). I think it's great that there are kids who find inspiration for their marginalized emotions in a medium with high visibility, the likes of which only a Disney princess film can offer. I also think they're looking a gift horse in the mouth by demanding that every other kid's inspiration be marginalized for their sake.

 

[crows]

I think a larger point is being missed here. Why the hell are they making a sequel? Every sequel to a Disney animated feature has been direct-to-dvd junk. I think the LGBT crusaders are lowering the representation bar. They're looking for fan fiction elevated to a commodity for the Mouse to exploit. Seems desperate. They already have a heroine in Elsa. It's not explicit, but it doesn't have to be. The story is still what it is, but as it stands, the themes are universally applicable (a feature of great art, as opposed to a propaganda reel). I think it's great that there are kids who find inspiration for their marginalized emotions in a medium with high visibility, the likes of which only a Disney princess film can offer. I also think they're looking a gift horse in the mouth by demanding that every other kid's inspiration be marginalized for their sake.

how could they not

 

[devilof76]

Artistic integrity?

 

[crows]

disney?

 

[devilof76]

You asked!

Whether or not they want to acknowledge the fact is not my problem.

 

[crows]

 

[The Ween]

All I'm going to say is, it's totally unnecessary to make her gay and I doubt very much if Disney would tread those waters with a cartoon that caters to kids that young.

 

[karamazov80]

I think they've already done it in sly ways. The post-credit scene, in particular, seems pretty clear-cut.

For example, I think sodomy in general is pretty degenerate

Whenever a girl would start to go down on me, I was always like, "Uh uh. Who do you think I am?? Get that degenerate **** out of here!"

I think a larger point is being missed here. Why the hell are they making a sequel? Every sequel to a Disney animated feature has been direct-to-dvd junk.

The Toy Story sequels were pretty good IMO.

 

[DiFabio]

Whenever a girl would start to go down on me, I was always like, "Uh uh. Who do you think I am?? Get that degenerate out of here!"

Wow, what a wuss.

I just meant that da buttsecks was deviant, not an old fashioned knob job from your high school sweetheart!

 

[karamazov80]

^^ Degenerate!

 

[Lejuan]

It's funny that this isn't really something I'm terribly passionate about, either. But I saw a lot of bandwagoning in this thread saying how stupid the whole idea/concept was, since homosexuality is so terrible and that kids should be shielded from it. And I felt I should at least provide a counterpoint to keep the conversation more balanced. From the perspective of someone who actually knows several open homosexuals/bisexuals (I bet everyone in this thread knows someone who is, even if that person hasn't come out of the closet yet), and thus understands that they're just human beings like everyone else, deserving of respect for who they are.

This is one of those issues that a discussion/debate isn't going to change opinions on. But opinions are changing in general, so if we revisited this conversation in 10 years I think the discussion would be very different.

Homosexuality is not a big deal in my house, girls 6 and 10. We have a friend visit every now and again who is 'gender transitioning', and a very close friend who's gay. No big deal to us.

My objection to making Elsa explicitly gay is to her status as a familiar character and the investment already placed in her as a particular, assumed role-model type by millions of girls.

It's fine that LGBTI groups want a gay character from Disney, but they shouldn't try to hang their push on an existing character imo, regardless of adult inferences and the context in which she's framed.

And Devil's right... Frozen 2? I'm sceptical...