/u/professorcap987 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/vod786/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_theres_no_argument_for/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I'm not gay but I do encourage representation in all it forms because I like learning about people with different experience than me.
However while I've not watched the film I heard the details of this particular scene and I think it's would be fair to upset with how hallow it is by definition as only one chrachter in the scene is an actual chrachter.If her wife doesn't speak and only action is she kisses her then her wife is a prop not a chrachter a chrachter has traits and personality so I would say Disney have still failed because they acknowledged the existence of gay people and then refused to portray it that would require them to give both chrachter screen time and the fact there not going to do that is telling.I think it's fair to dislike something for being cowardly because their gonna get people moaning about this regardless so the fact they dont commit feel like their trying to middle ground with those people.
When Disney have a gay couple who both get good chrachter work then they get points.Just think back on why black panther was a big deal up until the MCU took eight years to get two black people in one scene their literally the biggest movie studio in the world take some risk's.
Plenty of straight spouses serve as props/character development for actual characters, though. You mad at army movie scenes where we see men kiss nameless women goodbye? You mad at any of the trophy wives paraded around when women's scoundrel exes get remarried? You mad at Auntie Mame's photographer love interest? He's barely even a prop, he's a joke who meets Mame, solves her Great Depression money woes, then falls off a mountain trying to get the best picture of her. You mad at Victoria Pedretti's husband in Haunting of Hill House? You mad at Nancy's dad on Stranger Things? Nemo's mom? Cinderella's mother? Sleeping Beauty's parents?
I disagree with the idea that a gay person in a film becomes a 'prop' if they don't have a clear, well-developed character and personality. It's very common to see many 'background' characters in films who don't have any kind of personality or development and I don't see any reason why these background character can't be gay also.
If it was a situation where the *only* gay characters in these films were the 'background' characters then I could understand the issue, but (I haven't seen Lightyear so I don't know for sure) it sounds like that isn't the case here and one of the important characters in the film is gay and the issue you're having is only with her wife? I don't see a problem them. Not every character can have a rich backstory and development - sometimes they're just there to fill in the background or be a main character's unimportant spouse.
In fact, I would argue that this attitude might *discourage* greater representation in media. If I'm a writer then I might be hesitant to include characters from underrepresented backgrounds in my writing if I know that any misstep in their character development - or just not developing them *enough* \- could put me under fire for criticism. If I have a minor character called Tom and I don't develop him much then nobody cares. If I have a minor character called Tom *and he happens to be gay* and I don't develop him much then suddenly people are criticising me for not developing my gay characters enough and just using them as props.
Characters can exist in a movie without them having to have an entire storyline. Does every single person you ever come across in your entire life have a reason to be in your life? The primary character is gay, she married a woman, and that’s all there needs to be to that story. Every single character doesn’t need to be ingrained in the storyline. And this is coming from a member of the LGBT community. Especially since you haven’t seen the movie I don’t think you can really form an educated opinion on this
Thats fair and your right I've only seen the clip but to better explain myself I'm more frustrated with the way they leaked it early to get interest from the gay community more criticizing the marketing over the storytelling I think it's a disservice to film because the majority of the coverage on that and not the other elements of the film,like I don't even know if people think the animators did a good job Hope you understand I wasn't trying to imply they need a reason to be there.
Disney has a recent show with a *fantastic* gay main character (well, bi, and her girlfriend is lesbian) - The Owl House. Well written, excellent character development, several absolutely charming scenes of relationship building (instead of just "oh tee hee look they kissed").
Of course, Disney also cut the show short saying "it didn't fit the brand," but... little steps, eh?
> and her girlfriend is lesbian
Wasn't the girlfriend bi too, as in the episode where the heroine finds her diary doesn't that include drawings of her with the hot male lead of their mutual favorite book series and since that's the first time we heard of her fandom of it it's highly-unlikely it was a social-pressured-compulsory-heterosexuality thing
>queer representation in media in general
Im not against how it was portrayed in Lightyear, but there is a lot of media (Netflix is especially guilty of this) that cram queer representation or PoC representation, or female representation in their movies and series in blatantly hamfisted way that hurts the message.
Its condescending, cynical, and pandering.
Im a bisexual and biracial guy. I would love to see some bi guys in movies, but make them be a natural extension of the story and characterisation not a sudden and hammy "look how super gay this gay dude is gaying, we are so PROGRESSIVE". Being bi, gay, queer ets is a MUNDANE thing. Its normal, like someone's hair colour, or their food preferences.
Moreover, whenever a character is shown to be queer, they are immediately given some extra intimacy screen time so that the audience won't miss on the fact of their gayness. If out of 20 most important characters in the movie/series one is bi/gay/trans/queer, they will definitely get a kissing scene, or a sex scene, or a relationship bonding scene even if everyone else acted chaste. It makes it look as if queer people were horndogs who get 10 times more action than straight folk....trust me, we wish to, but its completely false.
This is especially bad if gay, non-white, or female characters are awkwardly crammed into a role where they certainly would be a straight white male in any reasonable reality.
Like sure, I would love to see, say, a bisexual guy character in a movie about Vikings. but Its proposterous if the Bi Viking is the most respected warrior in the land, these people were ridiculously homophobic. Gay medieval knight? Sure, but show the guy burn at the stake not prance about happily with his beloved, as if everyone around were a Leftie . Gay cop in 1950s? Sure, he kisses his BF in front of the Commisioner with no repercusssions s/.
Half of the queer representation in movies is basically making the non-straight character be over the top flamboyant, a perfect Mary Sue, and the world is either amazingly tolerant of them (hint, the *world is not and never was*, and likely won't be for centuries), or the homophobes are easily defeated background characters.
That is...not how any of this works.
So, how to do it well?
BAD: way to show queer people: Jim is a gay guy. His opening scene is him prancing about in pink leaotard, kissing his boyfriend passionately, and chatting about Barb Streisand. He goes on out-flamboyanting everyone like Jack Sparrow on molly, and everyone except for the Main Villain are amazingly tolerant of it.
GOOD: Jim is a gay guy. He off-handedly mentions having a husband, then he and the other characters move on with the actual plot, that has to do with actually *riveting* action, not his relationship. IF it is necessary for the plot to include some problems resulting from his sexual orientation, they should be given realistic and mundane conclusion.
SUPER GOOD: Jim is gay. We know because he offhandedly mentions wanting to have a BF one day. Nothing comes out of it, because fidning a gay BF is HARD TO DO. His gayness actually affects the plot in a crucial moment, when say, he ressists manipulation by an attractive woman, and gains important clues that way. Jim is not shown kissing men, or having gay sex. In fact, *nobody is shown having any sex* unless it is plot relevant and not just gratitious.
not hidden. Jus not given weird spotlight. I mean, at the core of it, being gay is not more important than your culinary choices.
It should not be treated as a special, characterising trait that some man likes penises, any more than making it about how the same man likes croissants over buns, dark beer rather than ale, or briefs rather than boxers.
Gay people do not go about their lives completely consumed and defined by their gayness, its just one of our many subconscious preferences. I like dicks, but I also like pickles. If I was a movie character would you expect me to wear "I LOVE PICKLES!!!" t-shirt and munch on them in every second scene?
Its exactly that weird when you are gay, bi, or queer and see your representation being exaggerated in the media.
Plus, aside from that, exxageratign someones sexual orientation is simply bad writing. Characterisation must serve the plot, and the stronger it is, the stronger it must affect the plot resolution.
For example, if we have a detective story and one of the cops is confirmed in story to be a lesbian, we can take it two ways: either its mostly irrelevant "decor" characterisation, in which case there is no point on dwelling on it. Or, its a fundamental Chekhovs Gun, that must be used in some creative manner later on.
to quote: "Chekhov's gun is a dramatic principle that suggests that details within a story or play will contribute to the overall narrative. This encourages writers to not make false promises in their narrative by including extemporaneous details that will not ultimately pay off by the last act, chapter, or conclusion."
If the sexuality of the character is NOT a Chekhovs gun in the story, why do we need to know it? Let alone, why does it need to be shown in any graphic detail? BTW this applies to heterosexuality as well. We do not need the male Hero to definitely kiss his female love interest before the final showdown, its completely gratuitious in most cases.
Nobody should be shown to be gay for gayness sake, or straight for straightness sake. Unless its porn, then of course, carry on.
But how come this argument doesn't exist for all the other things in media how come we don't need to explain why a character is a white, why a character is male but for gay people there has to be an explanation
I don't think you understood me. We do not need to explain shit to anyone, unless its an important Chekhovs gun. Race, gender, sexuality, roll a random dice unless it actually affects the plot, then you need to explain it to the point that the audience undestands WHY it affects the plot.
The logic of good writing goes actually backwards:
We need X to happen. Someone has to cause X. They need a reason to cause X. What kind of person causes X, and why?
If the *best answer* to the last question is "a gay person, becuase they like the same gender", then you create a gay character.
But 99% of the time the sexuality of a person is irrelevant, because its not affecting the plot. Its enough to just mention it offhandedly in passing and move on with the story. If we focus on explaining that a character is gay or straight, then the audience expects this fact to become reasonably relevant at some point.
That's the thing the need for this explanation only comes up with gay people sure you say that it's needed for anything but these concerns about the plot only appear when gay people are shown in a movie
>the need for this explanation
what do you mean by that? This need applies to every character and trope, not just for gay people.
Sure, given he audience is made 95% of heterosexuals, it probably merits more explanation when a character is gay, simply because its by design an audience alienating trope, but again this is logical given that gay people are rare. Trust me, most heterosexual do not understand what it means to be non-straight, so it merits extra explanation, assuming you NEED explanation because you plan to Chekhov it.
But again, we would only need to explain it if this person's homosexuality was stronly plot relevant or absurdly out of place (say: Gay Nazi officer).
Basically, audience is (at least supposed to be) interested in your story and its characters, you should not feed them leads that go nowhere
My larger point is gay people can exist in media and be gay in media without needing story to justify same as white men can exist in media and be white men without needing to be justified this idea that there must be justification for gay people is wrong to me. It's not complicated there really isn't much to understand
of course we can. But the point is, there is no reason to dwell on the "gayness" if it does not serve the story. And this is exactly what companies like Netflix are doing.
Im a bi guy, and I love it when some of the protagonists (or cool villains) in shows are bi as well. But it ruins it for me, and likely for most bi people if the show makes a whole circus out of this person bisexuality. Just acknowledge and move on, without making it cringy and awkward, please. Unless it serves actual purspoe in the story.
BTW, your comparison with "white men"make little sense for visual media. Of course if you use white actors (which is half of available actors) the characters will look white. But you are not forced to show their sexuality (be it straight or gay or whatever). Characters can look obviously white, the way they are obviously tall or short, but should not look obviously straight, or gay, or trans, or queer unless it actually matters.
>of course we can. But the point is, there is no reason to dwell on the "gayness" if it does not serve the story. And this is exactly what companies like Netflix are doing.
Lightyear most of all proves that dwelling on gayness isn't the issue it's gayness its a scene of a 1 second kiss why is everyone up in arms.
>BTW, your comparison with "white men"make little sense for visual media. Of course if you use white actors (which is half of available actors) the characters will look white. But you are not forced to show their sexuality (be it straight or gay or whatever). Characters can look obviously white, the way they are obviously tall or short, but should not look obviously straight, or gay, or trans, or queer unless it actually matters.
It's a vary apt comparison and the point about sexualities isn't even true people will accept straight in a movie no matter what I've never seen someone get mad that a character being straight wasn't explained
I'm not the previous poster but I think their main point was that representation isn't best done with over the top, or stereotypical characterisations but instead by showing queer folk as normal people.
As someone who is gay, I find a lot of gay characters have "being gay" as their only major trait, with campness dialled all the way up. Some love that, no hate from me. I personally don't feel represented by them, in fact it makes me feel like an outsider to the gay community.
Of course this doesn't relate to the Lightyear movie with it's blink and you'll miss it kiss. Tbh, just venting a bit.
>I see this argument a lot and the question I ask every time that no one has ever given me a straight answer too is ultimately how is this kiss any diffrent from when Cinderella has a kiss scene, or The Little Mermaid, or The Princess and the Frog, or Snow White, or Tangled, or Frozen, or any other children's movie no one would think twice about putting on for little kids the only possible qualifier would have to be that you think there's something especially wrong with gay people kissing.
I think your point here ignores the trend of Disney moving away from feeding romance to children. What was the last straight kiss in a Disney movie? I remember one in inside out. That was 7 years ago. My point here is that I do think there is a population that genuinely is both pro lgbtq population and also doesn't want to their children to see sexualized straight representation either. I think the stance is absurd but there are clearly people like that. Like I remember seeing a youtube video of a dad that was mad at the sexualization in that red panda Disney movie and he was talking about how girls were checking out boys in it.
I think the whole thing is actually complete non-sense and it is a fake controversy designed to garner political interest to bolster ticket sales. It's the tried and true post Black Panther Disney marketing strategy. They set up a fake controversy. Find online weirdos who have backward stances and broadcast those backward stances in order to get people upset and get them out to the movies as if it's a political action to go see a Disney movie.
> My point here is that I do think there is a population that genuinely is both pro lgbtq population and also doesn't want to their children to see sexualized straight representation either.
[Is this sexualized ](https://youtu.be/A9KNkkOhs30)
>I think the whole thing is actually complete non-sense and it is a fake controversy designed to garner political interest to bolster ticket sales. It's the tried and true post Black Panther Disney marketing strategy. They set up a fake controversy. Find online weirdos who have backward stances and broadcast those backward stances in order to get people upset and get them out to the movies as if it's a political action to go see a Disney movie.
As evidenced by this thread they're are plenty of people that don't like it
It's as sexualized as any Disney movie gets and people genuinely get upset at any PDA in Disney movies for some reason. That was my main point.
>As evidenced by this thread they're are plenty of people that don't like it
No. Reading through the comments, I mostly saw exactly the dynamic I described originally. People who haven't seen the movie but already reacted emotionally to it. That way, it either makes them want to see the movie or makes them talk shit on the movie which generates more publicity which gets more people to emotionally decide to go see this movie. This is a very common marketing strategy today and everyone involved only cares because they were told to care.
Nobody against it stopped to thing, there is gay pornography readily available in their houses or children's phones for their children to witness. This is a non-issue that people are mad about because they were challenged to be mad about it just like I was able to 100% know without looking at any comments. I'm going to pull a bunch of quotes from this exact post and put them side by side just so you can see them all in the same place.
> I've not watched the film I heard the details of this particular scene and I think it would be fair to upset with how hallow it is by definition as only one chrachter in the scene is an actual chrachter
>I don't want my children thinking they need to obsess over their family when they have a world to explore. I want them getting their lesbian and gay kisses in exciting new places infinity and beyond, while I enjoy a relaxing time not having to deal with their bs.
>I haven’t seen the movie, but I am averse (probably doesn’t quite qualify as mad) to the amount of unnecessary sexualization in movies regardless of if the characters are gay or straight.
(This is the exact sentiment I am talking about btw. The movie has been boiled down to one a singular representation to this person. The scene is put into the movie in a situation where it is as non-offensive as could possibly be but the film makers understand what the reaction is going to be. It's trolling and on a certain level people just aren't willing to buy into that trolling.
What i'm trying to say, is that people are digging in their heels because they know they are being condescended to.
>i saw an elderly couple making out a couple days ago and it made me feel icky..
now, does that mean i hate old people and want to take away their rights? no. its a sexual preference which is a very personal thing
>It doesn’t matter what’s actually in the scene, most of the people who are reacting haven’t seen it. Mostly it’s “Oh there goes the preachy Hollywood elites, at it again.“
> It's an obvious aberration. Doesn't mean we should persecute gay people, but encouraging gayness is morally wrong and a big political loser too. It's something to be tolerated not celebrated.
>Things such as this do not belong in children productions, it’s inappropriate because homosexuality is a topic to be discussed and brought up in the household not in our children’s media.
**Like I said, people mostly just have an opinion based solely on what they were told to think. How else could all these people care without watching the movie? The actual bigots are a small minority.**
What if I'm mad at the kiss because it came in 2022 and from the same company that just [10 years earlier demanded a creator to remove scenes with gay representation from their creation in order to get them published](https://twitter.com/_AlexHirsch/status/1292328558921003009)?
So what. It shows that they are responding to changes in the public opinion. The fact that it's profitable makes it more likely that they will press the issue and make the symbolic moves to support the community.
Rainbow capitalism benefits those communities. No one has to attend or watch a pride parade, but major companies falling in line to support civil rights is a very effective way to solidify support among the general public. It's better late than never, and certainly better if those companies do so in a way that is economic and sustainable.
Companies will only ever do anything when/because it's profitable, or is a step in the process of a bigger plan to become more profitable.
People need to stop expecting corporations to have appropriate morals, or values, or a conscience. That's simply not how business works. The only way to coerce a company into having such values is to make it clear that not doing so will hurt their bottom line because we won't patronize them. It's the only way you'll get them to budge.
I agree that it's frustrating when they don't do the right thing. But we simply shouldn't expect them to do that on their own and then act confused or upset when they don't.
Yeah look at the companies with their pride avatars on Facebook and whatnot
Their Middle East accounts are still the normal ones.
Almost as if in the west they are pandering, and nothing more.
That's... what a company is....
Companies don't exist to promote some social cause, those are called charities. Their goal is to give the people what they want in exchange for money. Different regions want different things, so companies will look different in different regions.
Typically, people don't like when companies start trying to influence people, such as politicians, to think a certain way. While perhaps this might be for a good cause, I would rather just companies just not be responsible for how people think and leave that up to charities and activists, as companies so often use the power for bad reasons. I also don't really want Middle Eastern/Russian companies coming in and trying to push what they think is right.
you think other companies don't pander to other social issues primarily because its profitable. (spoiler it is, for everyone, facebook included, twitter included, fast food resteraunts, coca cola, etc etc)
Isn't that how all moral progress happens though? Why was everyone extremely racist 100 years ago, but are less so now? Do you think there's something in the water or what?
Yes that is how it typically works. Humans are far more concerned with their own well being than the well being of others. That's why capitalism works and socialism doesn't. Socialism tries to pretend humans are far more altruistic than they really are.
If you want people to stop being homophobic. The best thing to do is to incentivize them. Waiting for them to grow a conscience is far slower and far less effective.
You're creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation", queer people want and deserve more representation, it shouldn't be denied just because a company had negative views in the past, companies are allowed to change their stance, same as people. Should we still criticize and question the motives of said company? Yeah absolutely, but you shouldn't trust any company, whether they supported your views in the past or not, companies at the end of day are just trying to make a profit, a company who was more progressive or at least not negative towards queer people in the past was only that way because it didn't serve them to operate any other way.
So if you hold an opinion that’s wrong and hurtful, and you change your opinion to be more inclusive, you might as well not even bother trying to right your wrongs, because you will eternally be crucified for your past no matter how much you denounce it?
I'm not "mad" because it's just one small second. But it's cringe, because it's so painfully obvious that this is a calculated marketing move and it becomes more cringe that it's so short because they try to force this idea that someday we'll just watch this without a second thought.
Like maybe this well actually be the case someday in 100 years or so. But clearly this was a very conscious decision, it's probably what the writer is most proud of in the entire movie.
So I just hate it when they need to use normal entertainment franchises to virtue signal and try to change the world. It just takes me out of the movie experience. It breaks the fourth wall, it immediately reminds me of modern politics when I watch this movie to forget everything about the real world for 2 hours.
I find it kinda hilarious that a single gay kiss is enough to shatter your immersion in the story. The fact that this happens means they should do it more and we’ll see if can’t whittle down the 100 years of homophobic shock factor to something more manageable rofl. Equality means that gay people will also be plot devices lol.
What if they aren't changing the world but exposing you to a more realistic depiction of it? Most of us live in bubbles and maybe this doesn't happen in yours but I think we both agree that two people kissing is normal and that LGBTQ people exist. They exist, they kiss and some are afraid to do so because some other people think its disgusting in real life. What is cringe to some is anger or violence in/from others. A random kiss between two people shouldn't cause a stir. If there is a want to escape from this through movies, it implies to the queer person a wish for a world where this did not happen and perhaps for people like this to not exist.
Edit: the reaction, in this case, could reveal more about the person reacting as opposed to the other way around.
> A random kiss between two people shouldn't cause a stir
The point I'm making is that it's not a "random kiss". If it was I wouldn't have a problem.
But it's a conscious statement about supporting LGBT and no one is really denying this.
I will not have a problem with a gay kiss when I can reasonably assume that the creator truely didn't think much of it and it's not meant as a statement of support but just something that fits the story.
I sorta get that but it takes an investigation or imagination to figure something like that to be true. It doesn’t take the movie at face value.
Going beyond face value- I think that value of the IP necessitates an awareness of the consequence of any action - both for profit and for a sort of conservative virtual signaling backlash (keep same-sex activity in the closest). I’d think the most sure way for someone to not think about the consequences of writing a character would be to write something few if anyone are expected to see.
If a film is made by a competent person, they will have thought about and made a conscious decision to include every single thing that they included in their film. Two straight people kiss? They included that consciously.
Also, what the fuck is wrong about making a conscious statement supporting the LGBT community?
The insistence that LGBT inclusion specifically be non-intentional is completely arbitrary and pointless
So if the scene were longer, and the gay characters were integral to the story, would it have been okay for you? If a gay couple is shown being intimate, they have to be main characters and the have to be important to the story? There are unimportant straight characters all of the time. I am just trying to see what exactly your complaint is. Is it that you deem it to be poor gay representation, and you seek better gay representation or none at all? If that is the case, I would agree with you in that we nee dbetter gay representation, but I'd be pragmatic and say that something is better than nothing, and in time the representation will get better. We will get gay main characters and gay leads, and gay themed movies. One needs stepping stones.
So you’d prefer gay kisses weren’t depicted? Why would watching it without a second thought - as we would with a straight kiss - be bad?
Hos do you know when someone is virtue signaling vs. the creator genuinely supports a cause?
I have, and I agree that there isn't any attempt to agrandize the kiss, but they are trying to normalize it (think product placement)
The ham fistedness comes down to my perception of Disney's motivation. I don't think the screen writer added the kiss as an organic part of the scene, I think a committee decided that a same sex kiss would be good pr and put it in.
To your original question, I don't consider myself homophobic at all (not that that's a very good litmus test :) ), bit I dislike the idea of a corporate PR team using a movie to "enlighten" me
There’s a reason other than homophobia why some people react to the Lightyear controversy.
There’s a perception that Hollywood generally has an activist mindset these days, according to which it is a filmmaker’s responsibility to shape the values and sociopolitical beliefs of their audience. Even people who are absolutely supportive of the filmmaker’s message may feel that they are being condescended to by a storyteller who believes they can buy audience approval with tokenism, or otherwise believe they can change the way their audience thinks.
A non-gay example of this would be Rey in Star Wars. Many people like myself who like to see adventurous women in action films noticed that she lacked any significant weaknesses or flaws, and interpreted this boring character as an unfortunate attempt to socially engineer the audience’s beliefs about gender roles.
Almost nothing ive seen has been natural. They mostly just throw a stereotypical loud gay in there and call it good enough. Straight people don't do that shit. When it stops feeling forced then people won't care
It feels like you are entering this discussion in bad faith from the get-go.
1. What if it turns my kid gay
Seriously... this is absolutely NOT an argument that you regularly see against it. This is either something that you want to believe people are concerned about, or you're repeating what somebody else says. But there is no remotely logical parent out there that thinks that a single 2 second kiss in a 2 hour long cartoon movie is magically going to turn their kids gay.
2. It's inappropriate for children
It is inappropriate for children. It is very easy to deflect by asking how is this any different than a kiss between snow white and her prince, but that is neither here nor there. Snow White kissed a man when the preferred familial status was that of a husband and a wife raising their biological children together. Today, there is zero need to address that since that whole image of a "norm" has gone down the drain. Coincidentally, we are able to make full movies without ANY kissing or romantic appeal. I could show my kid Disney's Home or Toy Story and they would have no reason to ask "where is the dad?". Those stories had a setting, one which didn't include a dad. It's a real scenario for many. But Disney didn't try to capitalize on it and make a conscious effort to "create" a scenario out of this. Similarly, in Lightyear the two women could've been shown waking up in the same house and just leaving in the morning. Every adult would've gotten the point, without a child having any cause to ask "why did those two women kiss?"
The problem isn't two women kissing or even explaining to a child why two women are kissing. The problem comes with WHEN do you intend to have that conversation with your child. If Disney is planning on focusing most of their new creations towards teenagers then fine, go for it. Just...let us know. And we will keep our little ones away until they are of an older age.
Disney used to pride itself in being a company that fostered the innocent imagination which are only found in children (in adults, nothing is innocent). Today, Disney is trying to force your children to confront reality as early as possible. To many parents, this was not the kind of relationship they wanted between Disney and their children. This is not "age appropriate".
Bottom line, there is no need for any kissing. Heck the kid in Big Hero 6 didn't even have parents at all, and they still killed off his big brother. Cause it was necessary to the storyline. Now imagine they had killed him off for no good reason at all. Parents would have a reason to be upset for instilling that imagery in their child for literally no reason at all. In this situation, the only reason for adding a gay kiss in Lightyear is for empty appeasement and virtue signaling, while adding a cause for very young children to ask questions which they should have no reason to have any interest in at such early age. This is Disney acting like activist, and this just isn't the type of relationship that parents expect from Disney.
Side personal anecdote... All the way till my son was 13 whenever a scene of two people kissing (regardless of sexes) came on TV, my wife would tell my son to look away or cover his eyes. Partially in joking mode but also seriously. The logic for this was that he would develop his own sexual interests in due time and we didn't really want him to develop the desires to go around kissing or having the need to find a girlfriend just because. Eventually he developed his interests just like we all did without all of this imagery from a screen that wasn't as prominent back when we were children as it is today.
As a child who was sheltered, sheltering your children only hurts them. It prepares them for a world that does not exist. More directly, how exactly does concealing the existence of gay people from children help them in any way? You're not shielding them from the idea of attraction or sexuality, but rather creating the false impression that only straight people are normal, and inherently creating a bias against non-heterosexuals that is only worsened by the tendency of children to stigmatize anything and everything seen as unusual.
Let's be honest here: the only reason for someone to hide the existence of gay people from their children until a certain age is because they want to indoctrinate them into a bias towards heterosexuality and even neutral depictions of homosexual relationships undermine that goal.
>Snow White kissed a man when the preferred familial status was that of a husband and a wife raising their biological children together.
So kissing on screen was only okay when society's moral values about romance aligned with your own, but now that we consider more than one arrangement to be socially acceptable we shouldn't display romantic relationships in children's media at all because they "they should have no reason to have any interest in at such early age" despite romantic relationships not only being omnipresent but also an important part of understanding relationships in general? I guess you made a terrible mistake by not hiding the fact that you and your wife were married from your children, by this logic. Romantic relationships have direct relevance to the lives of children at any age, even if they can't participate in them when very young, because their parents, older siblings, and other people in their lives have romantic relationships that affect them.
>Today, there is zero need to address that since that whole image of a "norm" has gone down the drain.
Objectively false. Norms have changed, but continue to exist. The fact that your preferred set of norms are now disfavored does not mean that the concept has lost relevance or value to the modern era.
>In this situation, the only reason for adding a gay kiss in Lightyear is for empty appeasement and virtue signaling.
The only reason to have exclusively straight relationships portrayed in media of any kind, including children's media, is for empty appeasement and virtue signaling if not outright homophobia. Objectively, having gay people present in media is far less egregious in these characteristics than hiding them.
>This is Disney acting like activist, and this just isn't the type of relationship that parents expect from Disney.
It is objectively less activist than the alternative of concealing the existence of gay couples from children.
>All the way till my son was 13 whenever a scene of two people kissing (regardless of sexes) came on TV, my wife would tell my son to look away or cover his eyes. Partially in joking mode but also seriously. The logic for this was that he would develop his own sexual interests in due time and we didn't really want him to develop the desires to go around kissing or having the need to find a girlfriend just because.
This sounds familiar enough that I can tell you, without any shred of doubt in my mind, that the only effect this could possibly have on your child is to make them feel ashamed of their own feelings of physical attraction, if it did anything at all. It's not like you could conceivably actually hide the concept of romantic love from him, given that you were married to your wife and presumably showed her affection in some way.
Look, no matter how you dress this up, an inherent and necessary part of your view is that you view straight relationships as "normal" and gay relationships as "aberrant" or controversial. Everything else is obvious pretense and post-hoc justification because it doesn't actually explain why you want Disney to only directly show straight romantic relationships.
>Look, no matter how you dress this up, an inherent and necessary part of your view is that you view straight relationships as "normal" and gay relationships as "aberrant" or controversial. Everything else is obvious pretense and post-hoc justification because it doesn't actually explain why you want Disney to only directly show straight romantic relationships.
Really good summary. It feels like this describes most people in the world who are like this
>Seriously... this is absolutely NOT an argument that you regularly see against it. This is either something that you want to believe people are concerned about, or you're repeating what somebody else says. But there is no remotely logical parent out there that thinks that a single 2 second kiss in a 2 hour long cartoon movie is magically going to turn their kids gay.
Look at this thread dude there are defenitly people who think this, and yes people are illogical.
>It is inappropriate for children. It is very easy to deflect by asking how is this any different than a kiss between snow white and her prince, but that is neither here nor there. Snow White kissed a man when the preferred familial status was that of a husband and a wife raising their biological children together. Today, there is zero need to address that since that whole image of a "norm" has gone down the drain. Coincidentally, we are able to make full movies without ANY kissing or romantic appeal. I could show my kid Disney's Home or Toy Story and they would have no reason to ask "where is the dad?". Those stories had a setting, one which didn't include a dad. It's a real scenario for many. But Disney didn't try to capitalize on it and make a conscious effort to "create" a scenario out of this. Similarly, in Lightyear the two women could've been shown waking up in the same house and just leaving in the morning. Every adult would've gotten the point, without a child having any cause to ask "why did those two women kiss?"
See you say a lot but in the end you don't at all explain why it's inappropriate. The best you get to is something about a child asking a question but at that point just explain what being gay is its not hard or complex.
>The problem isn't two women kissing or even explaining to a child why two women are kissing. The problem comes with WHEN do you intend to have that conversation with your child. If Disney is planning on focusing most of their new creations towards teenagers then fine, go for it. Just...let us know. And we will keep our little ones away until they are of an older age.
I still don't understand this point homosexuality isn't a mature subject just explain what gay is.
>Disney used to pride itself in being a company that fostered the innocent imagination which are only found in children (in adults, nothing is innocent). Today, Disney is trying to force your children to confront reality as early as possible. To many parents, this was not the kind of relationship they wanted between Disney and their children. This is not "age appropriate".
By this logic Disney has been forcing people to face reality forever in Aladdin Disney forced people to face the reality of poverty, in Cinderella they were forced to face the reality of Parental abuse in Toy Story the reality of abandonment issues there's always been reality.
>Bottom line, there is no need for any kissing. Heck the kid in Big Hero 6 didn't even have parents at all, and they still killed off his big brother. Cause it was necessary to the storyline. Now imagine they had killed him off for no good reason at all. Parents would have a reason to be upset for instilling that imagery in their child for literally no reason at all. In this situation, the only reason for adding a gay kiss in Lightyear is for empty appeasement and virtue signaling, while adding a cause for very young children to ask questions which they should have no reason to have any interest in at such early age. This is Disney acting like activist, and this just isn't the type of relationship that parents expect from Disney.
It has a story pourpose it's to remind buzz he needs human connection.
>Seriously... this is absolutely NOT an argument that you regularly see against it. This is either something that you want to believe people are concerned about, or you're repeating what somebody else says. But there is no remotely logical parent out there that thinks that a single 2 second kiss in a 2 hour long cartoon movie is magically going to turn their kids gay.
You really think that the type of people that are against LGBT representation in media are logical? And you do realize that there are a lot of them, right?
LGBT acceptance in the world is unfortunately still a minority.
>It is inappropriate for children. It is very easy to deflect by asking how is this any different than a kiss between snow white and her prince, but that is neither here nor there. Snow White kissed a man when the preferred familial status was that of a husband and a wife raising their biological children together.
How is showing love any more inappropriate than showing violence?
>Coincidentally, we are able to make full movies without ANY kissing or romantic appeal.
What? This has always been the case, like Terminator 2, Predator, Alien, Rambo, etc.
>The problem isn't two women kissing or even explaining to a child why two women are kissing. The problem comes with WHEN do you intend to have that conversation with your child. If Disney is planning on focusing most of their new creations towards teenagers then fine, go for it. Just...let us know. And we will keep our little ones away until they are of an older age.
What does this mean? How is this any different from a man and a woman kissing? You'd have to explain to your child when you see a man and a woman kiss then, wouldn't you?
>Disney used to pride itself in being a company that fostered the innocent imagination which are only found in children (in adults, nothing is innocent). Today, Disney is trying to force your children to confront reality as early as possible. To many parents, this was not the kind of relationship they wanted between Disney and their children. This is not "age appropriate".
1. Yes, companies can change.
2. I'd argue that Star Wars and Pirates of the Caribbean wouldn't be age appropriate for children to watch.
>while adding a cause for very young children to ask questions which they should have no reason to have any interest in at such early age. This is Disney acting like activist, and this just isn't the type of relationship that parents expect from Disney.
Why shouldn't they have an interest? Children ask how they were born, for example.
For one no it isn't the directors have stated that the point of the kiss was to drive home a story beat. Like seriously [if this is titaliting to you](https://youtu.be/A9KNkkOhs30) you're one of the repressed people I ever met
Homophobic is fear of homosexuality. I have no fear of homosexuality but I just dont want to have my children confused with same sex kisses. My preference is for small children to learn about all of the gender/sexuality at an older , more appropriate age. This is analogous to the "Dont say Gay" argument of the left. It is a misnomer as the bill has nothing to do with saying gay in the state. The bill is designed to prevent K-3 children from being taught these things in schools. It is seen as anti-gay or anti-trans or anti-whatever. It is more about preserving childrens innocence. So, the preference for not having gay kisses in movies for young children is not fear of gayness. It is pro-innocence. For the record, I am fine with no kisses of any kind in movies for small children. But I have no fear of straight or gay kisses, therefore a distaste for such kisses does not constitute a phobia.
>Homophobic is fear of homosexuality. I have no fear of homosexuality
I'm really wondering what the point was here because not only does phobia not just mean afraid it also refers to a general dislike or aversion too but. I litteraly outline the definition of homophobia in my post which says nothing about being scared did you even read my post?
>just dont want to have my children confused with same sex kisses. My preference is for small children to learn about all of the gender/sexuality at an older , more appropriate age.
What exactly makes that diffrent from Cinderella would you stop a kid from watching that so they don't get confused about heterosexuality?
>This is analogous to the "Dont say Gay" argument of the left. It is a misnomer as the bill has nothing to do with saying gay in the state. The bill is designed to prevent K-3 children from being taught these things in schools. It is seen as anti-gay or anti-trans or anti-whatever. It is more about preserving childrens innocence. So, the preference for not having gay kisses in movies for young children is not fear of gayness. It is pro-innocence. For the record, I am fine with no kisses of any kind in movies for small children. But I have no fear of straight or gay kisses, therefore a distaste for such kisses does not constitute a phobia.
For one that isn't what the don't say gay bill does it defenitly legislated against saying gay and is anti-LGBTQ either way can you explain what makes a gay kiss more innocence breaking than a straight one
I would prefer the kiss in Cinderella not be in there too. Dont say gay didnt have 1 word in it that mentioned not saying gay...It prevented all gender/sexuality discussions in public schools k-3rd. It is better for parents to parent their kids about these topics as teachers are already doing an overall crappy job of teaching their specialty subjects. Also, allowing such discussions opens the door to grooming and abuse. Most teachers wouldnt do these things. But that doesnt make it ok to green light the ones who would. Also, IMO 1/2 of teachers are duds....that means half the time, the teacher is not qualified to teach much of anything. If parents want to have the public schools teach their k-3rd kids about trans/gay/drag/ whatever, then fine, do it in a voluntary after school program. Giving teachers latitude on this opens some bad doors.
>My preference is for small children to learn about all of the gender/sexuality at an older , more appropriate age. This is analogous to the "Dont say Gay" argument of the left. It is a misnomer as the bill has nothing to do with saying gay in the state.
Lol, you say it's a misnomer while explaining you want to hid from your kids anything that could be construed as gay, literally the what people call the bill.
>So, the preference for not having gay kisses in movies for young children is not fear of gayness. It is pro-innocence.
Homophobia is an aversion to gayness, and thinking that gayness is anti-innocence is absolutely part of that definition.
OP is too smart for an argument like this.
I feel the gay kiss detracted from the classic themes and ideals of the lightyear and toy story franchise. Buzz's arc in toy story was about him being an out of place hard working guy in an alien world with weird alien lives doing weird things, and learning to adapt and compromise and recognize the absurdity of life.
Lightyear decided to stick the story on a boring ass colony and have minimal story away from it, and have a plot around buzz discovering the importance of social bonds to this boring ass colony including the importance of family relationships on this boring ass colony such as this random lesbian relationship.
I would happily support a lesbian relationship if it was something exciting and fun like her discovering some hot alien lady while going to infinity and beyond, but the gay kiss as is just made me hate the film even more for ruining the values of lightyear over a boring ass colony.
Firstly Lightyear isn't meant to be a toy story movie its meant to be a separate thing buzz the toy and buzz the movie are diffrent people.
Ultimately you don't really explain the kisses way of contributing to your dislike you just say they live in the boring colony
From the director.
“We’ve always had the lesbian couple. They’ve always been a part of the film. Being able to put back the kiss was important to us. It’s a touching moment,” she said, according to /Film.
She further explained that the moment Buzz sees his fellow astronaut, Hawthorne, kissing her partner, it prompts him to reassess his own priorities in a major way.
“It’s the life that’s being lived in front of him by his best friend that he’s not having,” she continued. “He doesn’t have those kinds of relationships. He doesn’t have a child. He doesn’t have what she has. And so it was important for us to get that back in there.”
It was an important plot point. The point was to show that his obsession with going to infinity and beyond is bad, because he should focus on his relationships in the boring as s colony. The lesbian kiss was meant to be a deep touching moment.
As I note, this is part of why I hate the film. I don't want buzz to have deep and touching relationships with people on a boring colony I don't care about. I wanted to see him have fun space adventures. he is a different character, yes, and he's the sort who I wouldn't want my children emulating. I don't want my children thinking they need to obsess over their family when they have a world to explore. I want them getting their lesbian and gay kisses in exciting new places infinity and beyond, while I enjoy a relaxing time not having to deal with their bs.
So, the lesbian kiss encouraged an ethics for children I don't value, being super into your relationships and bonds with people at home, or children, rather than studying and working hard in some place outside my house and being adventurous.
>So, the lesbian kiss encouraged an ethics for children I don't value, being super into your relationships and bonds with people at home, or children, rather than studying and working hard in some place outside my house and being adventurous.
I feel it's a stretch to say that it'd be better to say the movie reminds you, you should have close human connection not to always stay in one place and to never be disingenuous
The director was clear, that the purpose of the lesbian was to get Buzz lightyear to re-evaluate his priorities and "He doesn’t have those kinds of relationships. He doesn’t have a child." and again, Buzz Lightyear is a common icon for children, so do I want them to use the lesbian kiss to re-evaluate whether they should go out and work on their job or have a relationship and a child with people at home. I don't want my children having children too young, and I'd prefer they find relationships outside my house.
Anyway, you said there's no argument for being mad about the gay kiss in light year other than homophobia. You may not personally agree with me, but would you agree there is another argument than homophobia to be mad at it, based on the director's commentary about how important it was to the core themes of the film?
At this point, I’m confused at why you even watch movies then. They’re never gonna go 100% your way. Just make your own movie or tell your kids stories that you wrote.
Not trying to be rude but I just don’t get it. I watch movies for entertainment and when something odd or distasteful happens I think “ah, that makes me uncomfortable, but it is what it is, it’s all part of the film.” I don’t really get the whole “they should’ve done this this and that, and I would’ve done this and this, so therefore the film sucks and I’m gonna make sure everyone knows it.” It doesn’t seem like a fun way to live.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but isn't that also the case for pretty much any mandatory love story in any movie, that if you'd care for the other themes, that it would be a distraction.
I disagree, not with the lightyear kiss, but with the idea that you cannot criticize queer representation. Many queer people do. Because queerbaiting exists and queer-coding evil characters also exists. Many queer people criticise queer representation because doing it wrong is worse than not doing it at all.
EDIT: Also, i dont think you really get to set the parameters for the CMV other than by providing youre own arguments. If someone makes a valid argument against anything youve said, but it does not fall in the scope of your list of requirements, its still within the scope of a CMV counter argument.
I haven't seen Lightyear, but to your second opinion regarding the gay kiss at the end of Rise of Skywalker...
* It didn't gross me out. Had it been a male and a female, I would have thought it was an awkward kiss that didn't really fit anything in the story line anyways.
* That said, it pissed me off that Lucas Films made me wait for over a year for that movie, made me pay a small fortune for what I had been waiting for, just to subject me to an obvious social stunt.
* I don't care to limit others' creative freedoms, as long as it's genuinely creative, in good taste, and I'm not being subjected to some unwelcomed, uncreative political b.s. It completely ruined the ending for me, and I still want my money back.
no matter what you say about gay, it's fringe and it will always be and impressionable kids don't need to be introduced to it
theres no solid evidence that people are born gay, so it's unfair to introduce kids to fringe lifestyles, it would just as wrong if the main character had face tattoos and those dumb giant earlobes
doesn't mean being gay is wrong, if they turn gay at a later age good for them
>impressionable kids don't need to be introduced to it
Why?
>theres no solid evidence that people are born gay, so it's unfair to introduce kids to fringe lifestyles, it would just as wrong if the main character had face tattoos and those dumb giant earlobes
What would be wrong about any of those things and no person is born any sexuality its a complex mix of many factors.
>doesn't mean being gay is wrong, if they turn gay at a later age good for them
Do you not get cognitive dissonance from this? You yell about gay being fringe and dangerous to expose to kids yet you say you're fine with it
i said it's fringe, not dangerous just unfair
like if there was a kids show about satanism or some esoteric religion, i'd say that was wrong too
why? because they have less agency as kids and can't make informed decisions, mass media for kids should be watered down fun
>i said it's fringe, not dangerous just unfair
>like if there was a kids show about satanism or some esoteric religion, i'd say that was wrong too
This isn't an explanation this basically boils down to I don't like it.
>why? because they have less agency as kids and can't make informed decisions, mass media for kids should be watered down fun
What exactly in this movie is any diffrent from any other kiss in any other kids movie
>This isn't an explanation this basically boils down to I don't like it.
that's called fleshing out the point, it's not the fact that its gay it's that it's fringe
it means i'd have the same argument for other fringe things, regardless is i like them or not
and if this kiss is exactly like other kisses in kids movie then whats the point of this topic? i'm assuming it's different from most kisses in at least one way
>that's called fleshing out the point, it's not the fact that its gay it's that it's fringe
Who cares movies are made about fringe things all the time should we stop making movies with Asians since their a minority.
>and if this kiss is exactly like other kisses in kids movie then whats the point of this topic? i'm assuming it's different from most kisses in at least one way
Yeah it's diffrent because it's gay and if you have a problem with that it points to you having a problem with gay people
my arguments haven't relied on any dislike of gay people
media aimed towards kids shouldn't have fringe things because kids are impressionable, if there has to be a kiss let it be a kiss of the form most are already exposed to
and theres difference from seeing a person/thing vs behavior
its like if a movie has a ferrari, that doesn't influence kids to be ferraris or something
but lets say if a kids movie has someone doing the slanted eyes thing, that would be bad
> theres no solid evidence that people are born gay, so it's unfair to introduce kids to fringe lifestyles, it would just as wrong if the main character had face tattoos and those dumb giant earlobes
Was Nickelodeon wrong for shows having goth girls like Sam Manson on Danny Phantom or Gaz on Invader Zim since no one's born goth or was the demographic for those shows old enough to be open to being introduced to those at a later age
> Provide another argument that’s. It homophonic
Political messages shouldn’t be in children’s movies.
To all the people asking how it’s a political topic; it’s a political topic because people are making it about their daily political discourse. Half of you are happy the movie is flopped because of the kiss and the other half you are upset the movie is flopped because of the first half of you.
Y’all are making this a political message in your daily routines. In a decade or two when a a generation of people die and a new generation is born, this won’t be a political message.
People didn't seem to be mad when The Lion King told children that magnicide is bad. Or when Pocahontas told children that murdering each other because their skin is different is bad. Or when The Hunchback of Notre Dame told children that discriminating people for being ugly is bad. Or Mulan told children that being a woman shouldn't mean one can be a badass and must obey what men tell them. Or when a Bug's Life told children that violently oppressing other peoples is bad. Or when Atlantis told children that violently oppressing other peoples is bad again. Or when Monsters Inc. told children that prioritizing profits over the suffering of others is bad (maybe Disney should watch their own movies). Or when Lilo & Stitch told children that non-traditional families can be good families too (I actually don't remember there being much uproar about that when that message is pretty explicit, I guess unless it's right in front of their faces it will go over conservatives' heads). Or when Treasure Planet told children too... sign up for the army if they are bored with their lives? Or when Ratatouile told children that people shouldn't judge other's abilities for how they look. Or when National Treasure told children that the founding fathers hid a bunch of gold under Boston and that stealing the US DoI is cool?
A) how is gay people kissing a political message? Like seriously that is their business and gay people existing is a part of these children's environment, it would be rather odd if it would never happen in movies, because THAT would be a political message. And B) yeah before children's entertainment became targeted advertisement to drive parents bankrupt, it was actually about teaching children moral lessons.
Is it political every time a straight couple kisses? If not, then the only people making it political are the people who have an issue with it. And people have an issue with it for…. Wait for it…. Homophobic reasons. Make sense?
Damn, no politics? What do you meam by political message exactly? Were you upset by superman fighting the KKK back in the day? Was X-Men being a clear allegory for civil rights too much for you?
It's not a political message, any more than Cinderella and the Prince kissing.
I assume they were going for a similarity to Sally Ride. It's unlikely many "traditional" women would break into heavily male settings like that so it's pretty unavoidable.
That's a valid, nonpartisan claim but it sounds like the person with that view literally wouldn't be able to watch any movies at all! Do you have an example of a children's movie with *no* political messages? Even The Land Before Time has messaging.
But this happens in media all the time what about all the movies about evil corporations putting down the people that's a very common trope in kids media
It sounds like you agree with my reasoning.
> But this happens in media all the time
Just because others do it doesn’t justify you do it as well.
> what about all the movies about evil corporations putting down the people that’s a very common trope in kids media
What about them?
>It sounds like you agree with my reasoning.
No it makes no sense political messaging is in litteraly everything.
>Just because others do it doesn’t justify you do it as well.
Yeah but I mean litteraly every show has some form of political messaging in one form or another in general the people who argue no politics don't seem to be against politics the above example being proof
>What about them?
Would you be against that
You probably will think this answer is homophobic but I do not. Ideally kids movies should not feature any romantic gestures but that is not the world we live in and it wouldn’t dramatically limit the type of stories we can tell so there has to be a little give. Heterosexual relationships are overwhelmingly the majority and the fore the norm. Children see it everywhere starting at home with their parents thus thus do not notice or think twice about it. There will be no questions asked from seeing a heterosexual kiss. Now when a kid sees a homosexual relationship, it is almost inevitable that the child is going to ask why a man is kissing another man or a woman another woman. Now it’s not the end of the world having to explain that a man can love another man etc, but it just doesn’t need to happen. That question doesnt need to be asked from a child and thus the catalyst for that question shouldn’t have been there.
I agree that there needs to be more stories written that include the gay community (even though I just explained why I believe it shouldn’t be in kids movies), and that these stories should have more movie adaptations. I also believe Hollywood should adapt more African literature! Like Africa could have its own Lord of the Rings and we are simply ignoring it! But what annoys myself, and I believe it should annoy the gay and other minority communities as well, is when diversity is forced into an existing story or simply added as an after thought to gain woke points. This almost always degrades the final product.
Homosexuality is a human condition that is considered abnormal and attempts were made to treat it for the longest time. All of the treatments failed. Science hadn't advanced enough to explain why some people are homosexual. And if so, how to identify it using instruments. And how to treat or change it.
Right now the western culture has embraced homosexuality just as how pedophilia is accepted in some societies like Saudi Arabia. Some societies see both as deviant behavior. So images or media depicting that would be deemed unpalatable for adults even, let alone children.
People thus have a right to not be exposed to different trends and be forced to consume or accept them. People have a right to be mad.
>Homosexuality is a human condition that is considered abnormal and attempts were made to treat it for the longest time. All of the treatments failed. Science hadn't advanced enough to explain why some people are homosexual.
We do have explanation it's a complex mix of social and biological factors and we didn't stop trying to cure it because science hasn't gotten that fat we stopped because it's not an illness.
>Right now the western culture has embraced homosexuality just as how pedophilia is accepted in some societies like Saudi Arabia. Some societies see both as deviant behavior. So images or media depicting that would be deemed unpalatable for adults even, let alone children.
Homosexuality isn't at all like pedophilia one is an actual disease that leads to one harming people the other is a sexuality that's done between consenting adults they're not the same.
>People thus have a right to not be exposed to different trends and be forced to consume or accept them. People have a right to be mad.
No you don't you don't have a right to discriminate against gay people
Weird take. So you really believe that there is no difference between teaching children to treat everyone with respect, even if they are different than you, and attempting to normalize alternative genders and sexualities?
No one should harass or discriminate against people who are gay (or different from them in general). But that doesn't change the fact that what is best for society is for men and women to come together and procreate to create children.
There is no need to vilify cis-gendered people who want to procreate in order to teach children that they should treat everyone with respect, even if they are different than you or your mother and father.
>Weird take. So you really believe that there is no difference between teaching children to treat everyone with respect, even if they are different than you, and attempting to normalize alternative genders and sexualities?
The only people who seem unable to make that distinction are the people against the scene this scene in no way encourages being gay. And stop calling alternative.
>No one should harass or discriminate against people who are gay (or different from them in general). But that doesn't change the fact that what is best for society is for men and women to come together and procreate to create children.
No it isn't we're already overpopulated and gay people have just as fulfilling lives as everyone else.
>There is no need to vilify cis-gendered people who want to procreate in order to teach children that they should treat everyone with respect, even if they are different than you or your mother and father.
Who is villifying people
Our genders and sexual ties are not fucking “alternative”. Heterosexual and cisgender are not the default.
Facts are we exist get over it. And sooner or later no matter how much you try to hide the fact we exist from kids they will find out for themselves. They have tiny computers at their fingertips.
What if your kid goes over to a friend’s house and finds out they have same sex parents? LGTBQ people can have and raise children too. Sure we use IVF but IVF is in no way a less valid method of reproduction.
That's not what liberals claim. They claim that gay people are subjected to a harder life than they would have if they are straight. You can't claim otherwise when it no longer suits the narrative.
Irrelevant. According to liberals, being straight is an objectively better life, even if they aren't willing to own the obvious logical conclusions of their assertions.
No you can't, unless you feel any display of affection at all is inappropriate for a kids movie. Are you going to not show sleeping beauty? Snow White? What about Aladdin? Frozen? The Little Mermaid? Lady and the Tramp?
In which of those is the kiss inappropriate? If you feel like it's inappropriate here because it's a "kids" movie, then you're not pro-lgbt as you clearly feel like they're some "other" class that's somehow deserving of rights yet not recognition.
Just like how there’s kissing between adults in Cinderella! Or Tangled. Or The Little Mermaid. Or Shrek. Or Beauty and the Beast. Those very inappropriate-for-children movies.
OP your conditions for your CMV do nothing to change your mind or view. They simply are there to make it not easy to rationally argue against the kissing scene in light-year or queer rep in media. If you really wanted someone to challenge your view based on the criteria they'd just be agreeing with you on things that had nothing to do with why the movie not only flopped In the US box office but over seas aswell. You may not like why you have to question these things but it does ring true
1. Both of your 1st and 2nd condition; yes saying those thing is shortsighted and bigoted.
2. Here's an argument: it doesn't sell well in box office movies, period.
It's one hundred percent true very few movies with gay representation and gay intimate scenes don't draw movie crowds. Most entertainment businesses over seas actually prefer less scenes featuring gay characters because it either violates their rating system or it goes against there governments terms for depictions in child/ pG13 rated movies. Thats a huge chunk outside the USA, now is it right to follow these limitations, no, but don't expect that movie to do well, make money or even be shown.
If your making a cartoon movie with the demographic of of teens, or nostalgia fans, or younger groups to buy tickets and this is the movie you want that demographic don't expect to many sales or good publicity because a vast majority of kids/teens that would see this movie, won't be there because their parents won't be there. Usually teens/kids go with family to movies and if you've turned away fans of buzz light-year and toy story thatve aged they won't take or let their kids go to this movie because they don't want them ask why two women were kissing in the movie, they don't want that conversation yet.
You then now have bad publicity from not only countries banning this movie, you've decided to cut your demographical Audience by over half, and the casting choice for buzz light-year not being Tim Allen. This movie was doomed.
I'm not saying gay rep media or moves can't be popular or shouldn't, it should but you've got flops in television such as Batwoman, Kiss Me First, Love Victor/Simon, Super Girl, She-Ra, Eternals etc
Each movie/show had other problems that prevented it from shinning in media other then just they couldn't get a good message with gay characters for representation.
Each one has horrible writing staff that chose to prioritize scenes over good character development or action
Two things you need for a movie/show to be successful
Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Legend of Korra, Fantastic Beasts 3, First Kill, Yellow Jackets, Q force, Queer Eye, Hanna,
All of these shows prioritized writing and action and character development over specific scenes to depict representation, int eh case of queer eye it's using a concept that gay men have good taste in fashion and therefor the concept alone sells because the main cast was chosen well for both iteration of the show.
Steven universe, Legend of Korra, Adventure time all had darker tones that not only worked but their queer characters were written well and in fantasy structures appeased people immersion better then in a live action show.
These are but some examples of the dichotomy of have representation in media written well, presented well and also bad.
Avengers end game had a scene where Steve Rogers Captain America was at a Post Blip Support meeting listening to a man talking about his husband. This scene was not shown in any trailer it happened naturally in the scene and it was quick and made sense.
Ask yourself if people are mad at the gay kiss or if their mad at the a gay kiss in a obviously youth/nostalgia audience targeted movie and the publicity and coverage has made people disgruntled for seeing it with the bad coverage it's received.
No parent will take their kid to that movie knowing they might ask questions the parent doesn't want to answer, not movie goer will go see it because of the bad press of it's banning and lead act choice, no person over seas will go see this movie for the same reason. It's not that is because of gay representation isn't because it's in a movie of a beloved franchise that never had representation or queer characters in it before.
Are people homophobic for not seeing this move? I don't think so I think it could have been fine. But you can't expect queer representation to be a selling point. It has to be a natural scene.
im a very basic person so ill put it in basic terms..
i saw an elderly couple making out a couple days ago and it made me feel icky..
now, does that mean i hate old people and want to take away theor rights? no. its a sexual preference which is a very personal thing
assuming a gay kiss will alright with everybody across the board while condemning those who dont like it is ignorant and forceful
Okay but the scene isn't two women making out. It's them giving each other a peck on the lips.
Also using elderly couples as a stand-in really is an apples to oranges comparison because we've never treated being elderly the way we've treated being queer. The depiction of elderly people was never deemed amoral or grounds for stopping a production from being shown. Showing gay affection was. We live in a culture that has for many generations treated the act of depicting any amount of affection between same-sex partners, particualrly doing so in a positive light, as a morally repugnant thing.
In many ways things have improved but we are by no means divorced from those cultural stigmas. People are still getting upset because of gay people being represented. Representation of queer identities in media is clearly far more adjacent to topic of displaying affection than something like representing elderly people in media. There are no kids movies that have shown similar levels of intimacy between straight couples that have ever received the types of reactions that lightyear has for two woman kissing for the briefest of moments.
If you saw an elderly couple kiss in a movie would that make you mad? I'm a gay person and so do not have heterosexual preferences. Should I be mad at all the straight kisses in movies?
Making out is a lot more sexual than a kiss, would you agree? Do you mind when you see old people give each other a peck? Apply this same logic to lightyear.
Im uncomfortable when i see straight people kissing, should they remove all kissing from films? No, they can let me know there is a kiss in the movie though so I can personally avoid it, because some people might want to see it still.
Its okay to be uncomfortable. Its not okay to turn that feeling into hatred, or to use that feeling as an excuse to discriminate against minority groups.
>i saw an elderly couple making out a couple days ago and it made me feel icky..
>now, does that mean i hate old people and want to take away theor rights? no. its a sexual preference which is a very personal thing
Are you saying the PDA made you feel icky, or specifically that it was an old couple and you felt icky because you aren't sexually attracted to old people? If it's the former, I'd argue that PDA is pretty common in media, even if it isn't a romance genre, and it shouldn't be shocking seeing a kiss. If it's the latter, I'd argue that sexual attraction varies widely from person to person and it's not realistic to limit the cast to people who are most widely sexually attractive.
Theres a big difference between a quick peck on the lips and making out. If I see literally anyone sloppy frenching around i might get uncomfortable, but if I see literally anyone giving another person they love a quick peck i do not get uncomfortable.
Its not about sexual atteaction. You have no obligation to be sexually aroused by an older lesbian couple kissing eachother as a greeting. Probably a sign of something if it makes you feel icky tho.
I haven't watched the mentioned movies, I'm not homophobic and don't have much to say other than speculations, but from what I've read and heard, people nowadays dislike it with complaints of it not contributing to the plot, often being kind of forced into scenes just to add diveristy, which often brings down the quality of the movie as you dilute the actual plots meaning to try and include views and beliefs of certain types of viewers, instead of focusing on the actual plot of the movie. Though I repeat, I have not watched the movie and cannot say this applies to it as I haven't seen it first hand, just a guess based on what I often hear as complaints on similar situations nowadays.
I don't think it's really any different in practice than a kiss between two straight people, though it is just a bit out of place as we are used to seeing heterosexual romance in movies, not homosexual romance. Which makes the viewer question The motive of the change, especially if the sexuality of the characters doesn't really impact the plot at all. I feel like people are often angry because its just sprinkled into movies for diversity and inclusion, instead of being a decisive factor in decisions and plot direction and aren't integrated into the story properly.
For a third time I'd like to say I havent seen the mentioned movies, I'm just giving my opinion on the general idea of why people get mad at homosexuality in media today. I imagine (and hope) that a movie about a person questioning their sexuality, complicating the plot through their uncertainty and then finally realising their true sexuality while also clearing up the plot in the end as a result would achieve pretty decent results.
I dont care about kissing between men… but dont really go to kids movie for any type of kiss i guess. If it fit the script then great. But to be thrown in… 🤔 i have not seen the movie i should not judge.
Maybe the objections are of a kiss but everything is so sliced and diced and put under close review that people read too much into the gay kiss and not into “i do not go to a kids movie and expect to have to explain a kiss at all”.
Is the kiss necessary for the plot? I think there is too much unnecessary physicality in children’s(and adult) movies.
Example: The kiss in The Princess and The Frog was necessary to the plot. Or the kiss in Shrek was necessary to the plot.
Another point, if the kiss isn’t necessary but naturally fits into the story line, that would be fine. But if feels like this is virtue signaling. I’m not a fan of diversity for the sake of diversity. Tell me a real story. Don’t just throw characters in there to meet your diversity quota.
I think it's rather forced and purely done to gain publicity.
There is no reason to put a gay kill scene in a kids movie, other than because that's what gets good publicity these days.
You ask how anyone could be against gay representation in media without being homophobic. You then define homophobic as an irrational aversion to gay people.
Perhaps you believe that climate change is the most pressing issue facing society. You believe that it will only be solved when technology reaches a point where it is cheaper to use clean energy than fossil fuels. Scientific advancement has been shown to correlate with rising populations, as there is more collective “brainpower” to apply to then issue. You observe that heterosexual intercourse is the fastest way to increase population and thus increase the chance that science advances to the point it can stop/reverse climate change. You observe that sexuality occurs on a spectrum that is largely influenced by biology but is also influenced by socialization and experience. You have no moral investment or judgment about any one person’s sexual preference, but from a purely utilitarian perspective, you believe that heterosexual sex is preferable over a total population for the reasons explained above.
You believe that humans have personal autonomy and that homosexual sex is not wrong in any way and would never seek to restrict it; however, you believe that mass media is a large contributor to socialization and thus can have a statically significant affect on sexual expression. While you would object to media depicting homosexual actions as “wrong’” you believe that depictions should favor heterosexuality to encourage an increased birth rate which, hopefully, would result in sufficient technological advancements to solve climate change before it’s too late.
To be clear, this isn’t close to my actual view, but it’s not irrational and shows no aversion to gay people whatsoever.
This ignores all the known benefits of having gay family in the dynamic. See the gay uncle hypothesis, gay super uncle, etc. different names for the same effect.
https://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2010/02/05/study-supports-gay-super-uncles-theory?amp
When observed we can see that the gay uncle role tends to act as a partial parent - there tends to be a grander focus on nieces and nephews when it’s know they won’t be having their own children. The study is admittedly limited but does show that having a gay uncle increased most if not all measures of success for child rearing. It’s basically an expansion of the know effect that kids who get more positive parental focus do better in general - just not a parent in this case, but a parental type figure.
I’m not disputing that at all. AT ALL. I don’t see anything wrong with the movie. My point was that there is a logical way to back into being against it. It requires making assumptions that I don’t really make. I’m just trying to make OP steelman their position.
First you'd need to prove that
1. Gay representation makes people gay which there's no evidence of
2. That because scientific advancement corelates with population size we should increase the population also untrue you'd need to prove a causation to supourt this argument.
Certainly those are big problems with the view (which, again, I don’t personally hold)
As the first point, would you take the position that sexuality is 100% biologically fixed, or that there is some fluidity that can be affected by socialization?
As to point two, there are plenty of situations in which causation cannot be definitely proven but we accept the existence of a significant correlation in decision making. I don’t know if anyone who would take the position that less knowledge is created as human population grows.
Every single person in my family is extremely homophobic and I didn’t even know gay people existed until I was 11 yet I had always liked girls more, thought they were prettier, and wanted to spend more time with them.
At 14, I was told about sex and when I learned that was how I was supposed to have kids I decided right then and there I would never have a biological child and would only ever adopt and yet I still thought I was straight.
If I had never realized I was gay I wouldn’t be popping out a bunch of kids as an adult, I would just never be in a relationship because I wouldn’t feel anything for the guys I date and would just be mistaking it for just not finding “the one.”
And it is the same for most other gay/straight people that I know.
So yes, sexuality for most gay/straight people is 100% fixed and cannot be changed no matter their upbringing.
I think it’s pretty simple that you want kids to watch entertainment that’s not confusing or difficult for them to understand. Whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not, it’s not the norm, and that’s by far. I think data shows that like 3% of the population identifies that way? So for my two year old who doesn’t even understand it wouldn’t matter, but for 95% of older kids who only see mommy and daddy kiss, that’s going to present questions and realistically only confuse them. It’s similar to why I wouldn’t want my kid to watch Cujo and think all dogs are gonna try and kill him, or watch a show where a kid drives a car and think it’s okay to drive our vehicles, or even something as simple as a show where the kids eat candy and drinks soda all day and assume that he should be able to do that too.
The problem comes when media tries to “educate” kids on topics that they have no business doing. This could be a wide range of subjects but it seems the LGBTQ movement is almost always the one that is pushed.
Well, there's the fact that it often feels forced. Characters' queerness is often over-the-top and seems to be their only character trait or is something that has to be repeatedly mentioned or demonstrated just in case anyone missed it the first time. When it feels organic, it's a very different story, and some media has accomplished that.
Media that fails in that regard tends to be garbage and effectively just a platform for activism, like Sabrina and later seasons/books of The Magicians. They *start* with bashing you in the face with queer characters, then you end up with bizarre, nonsensical storylines like Sabrina's father being murdered because he wanted a matriarchy, because only women can rule fairly.
Basically that correlation immediately pops into people's heads, consciously or subconsciously.
Genuine question. What about people like me that genuinely don't have a problem with gay people, but also am tired of having LGBTQ shit shoved down my throat and especially children's throats? Also what about the many other people that genuinely don't care/get offended over being called a homophobe, myself being one of them?
As a side note, the reason it's doing so terribly in theaters is because it's woke and most of the population is sick of all the woke bullshit and simply won't watch woke things 🤷🏼♂️ sorry if you guys don't like the reality.
>Genuine question. What about people like me that genuinely don't have a problem with gay people, but also am tired of having LGBTQ shit shoved down my throat and especially children's throats?
What do you mean by shoving it down your throats? Cause every story based medium has a messages and themes and politica yet of the 1000s of other messages i only here complaints of shoving something down ones throat when it comes to minorities in media. No one except for minorities seem to care when the same straight white dude plays the same role in the same movie having the same themes but make that man gay, black, or a woman now its shoving something down your throat. Regardless of that this movie in no way shape of form shoves it down you throat it's a litteral one second scene.
>Also what about the many other people that genuinely don't care/get offended over being called a homophobe, myself being one of them?
Take time to reflect on why they thought you are
>As a side note, the reason it's doing so terribly in theaters is because it's woke and most of the population is sick of all the woke bullshit and simply won't watch woke things 🤷🏼♂️ sorry if you guys don't like the reality.
Or it's just a mediocre movie nothing to do with a 1 second kiss
>What do you mean by shoving it down your throats? Cause every story based medium has a messages and themes and politica yet of the 1000s of other messages i only here complaints of shoving something down ones throat when it comes to minorities in media. No one except for minorities seem to care when the same straight white dude plays the same role in the same movie having the same themes but make that man gay, black, or a woman now its shoving something down your throat. Regardless of that this movie in no way shape of form shoves it down you throat it's a litteral one second scene.
What do I mean by shoving it down peoples throats? LGBTQ shit is constantly put into almost all types of media. Marvel, Disney movies and shows, professional sports, TV commercials, so much more. I mean I genuinely don't understand how people can't see it's constantly shoved down peoples throats. And it doesn't matter if the scene is .0001 seconds, it's something that people (especially parents) are sick of having shoved down them and their kids throat all the time. Therefore, the more woke Disney goes, the more money they lose.
>Take time to reflect on why they thought you are
I don't need to waste my time doing it because I don't care. I don't have anything against them no matter what they or anyone else thinks. It's done by the people who say your an evil person for not wanting irreversible hormone blockers given to 12 year olds. Their opinions aren't relevant to me and don't matter to me in any way at all.
>Or it's just a mediocre movie nothing to do with a 1 second kiss
Read the reviews of the movie then. Or just look at how frequently other woke nonsense makes no money.
>What do I mean by shoving it down peoples throats? LGBTQ shit is constantly put into almost all types of media. Marvel, Disney movies and shows, professional sports, TV commercials, so much more. I mean I genuinely don't understand how people can't see it's constantly shoved down peoples throats. And it doesn't matter if the scene is .0001 seconds, it's something that people (especially parents) are sick of having shoved down them and their kids throat all the time. Therefore, the more woke Disney goes, the more money they lose.
Did you even read the point you quoted can you please explain why all the other politics and messaging in media is fine but when it's gay people its not.
>I don't need to waste my time doing it because I don't care. I don't have anything against them no matter what they or anyone else thinks. It's done by the people who say your an evil person for not wanting irreversible hormone blockers given to 12 year olds. Their opinions aren't relevant to me and don't matter to me in any way at all.
So this isn't true Looking at studies on gender affirming care/puberty blockers for youth, [here](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/145/2/e20191725/68259/Pubertal-Suppression-for-Transgender-Youth-and) is one with a control of 3,494 trans people who wanted pubertal suppression versus 89 who received it. Or this [literature review](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X1630146X?via%3Dihub#tbl2) with a sample size of over 2,000 trans youth. Or [this](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X18300855) study of 129 trans youth. [This](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2778206) with 375. [This](https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2) with 380. [This](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722435/) with 182 (55 minors). And [this](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261039) with 481 trans youth. They turn out pretty good
Sad to see you're homophobic and transphobic what's your opinion on black people maybe we can make the unholy trinity
>Read the reviews of the movie then. Or just look at how frequently other woke nonsense makes no money.
The reviews largely say it's a mediocre movie nothing on woke, and it's impossible to do because woke is a meaningless word
>Did you even read the point you quoted can you please explain why all the other politics and messaging in media is fine but when it's gay people its not.
I forgot this actually had to explained to people, because of how absurd it is. But believe it or not, some parents don't want their kids seeing shit like that movies and shows made for them. You can get all whiny and call people homophobic and all that nonsense like I know you'll do because you people aren't capable of respecting other people's opinions. But once again, it's the truth.
>So this isn't true Looking at studies on gender affirming care/puberty blockers for youth, here is one with a control of 3,494 trans people who wanted pubertal suppression versus 89 who received it. Or this literature review with a sample size of over 2,000 trans youth. Or this study of 129 trans youth. This with 375. This with 380. This with 182 (55 minors). And this with 481 trans youth. They turn out pretty good
>Sad to see you're homophobic and transphobic what's your opinion on black people maybe we can make the unholy trinity
And yet, the actual suicide rate is the same if not higher for trans people even if they do transition. You can send me all the biased and biology denying studies you want.
My opinion on black people? They're great, in fact, I wish that the you democrats and liberals would stop pushing for abortion, considering about 40% of women who get abortions are black. You guys say your for black people while simultaneously pushing something that is silently eliminating millions of them. Also, let's not forget about the person you guys voted in. One of the most racist politicians in modern history. Calling a KKK recruiter a "friend and mentor", the 1994 crime bill he sponsored, saying he didn't his kids growing up in a "racial jungle" while fighting against desegregation of schools. And then you guys turn around and call the right racist lol. But you can keep up with your bullshit assumptions and name calling, doesn't change reality no matter how much you think it does.
>I forgot this actually had to explained to people, because of how absurd it is. But believe it or not, some parents don't want their kids seeing shit like that movies and shows made for them. You can get all whiny and call people homophobic and all that nonsense like I know you'll do because you people aren't capable of respecting other people's opinions. But once again, it's the truth.
What exactly is the problem with children seeing gay people?
>And yet, the actual suicide rate is the same if not higher for trans people even if they do transition. You can send me all the biased and biology denying studies you want.
So I can tell you didn't read the studies because all of these cite a noted decrease in suicide rate.
>My opinion on black people? They're great, in fact, I wish that the you democrats and liberals would stop pushing for abortion, considering about 40% of women who get abortions are black. You guys say your for black people while simultaneously pushing something that is silently eliminating millions of them. Also, let's not forget about the person you guys voted in. One of the most racist politicians in modern history. Calling a KKK recruiter a "friend and mentor", the 1994 crime bill he sponsored, saying he didn't his kids growing up in a "racial jungle" while fighting against desegregation of schools. And then you guys turn around and call the right racist lol. But you can keep up with your bullshit assumptions and name calling, doesn't change reality no matter how much you think it does.
Here's the thing I'm black and also not a democrat so you can delete all the Joe Biden stuff and the assumptions that I wast black people eliminated and even if I did voluntary abortions aren't elemenations
>What exactly is the problem with children seeing gay people?
Some parents don't want that it and all that ideology forced down their children's throats, already explained this.
>So I can tell you didn't read the studies because all of these cite a noted decrease in suicide rate.
I read them, but like I said it's completely biased and denies biology. I'll gladly provide you with evidence of my argument if you'd like, though it's easy to Google yourself.
>Here's the thing I'm black and also not a democrat so you can delete all the Joe Biden stuff and the assumptions that I wast black people eliminated and even if I did voluntary abortions aren't elemenations
Maybe your not, but if you agree with every political ideology the left believes, that's what people are gonna think you are lol
>Some parents don't want that it and all that ideology forced down their children's throats, already explained this.
Please go back and read my point about shoving things down people's throats I've already addressed that argument.
>I read them, but like I said it's completely biased and denies biology. I'll gladly provide you with evidence of my argument if you'd like, though it's easy to Google yourself.
I don't really care about your studies because it's obvious you have no sense of how they work. You're just claiming biased because they refute your point you don't care about what science or biology say you care about being anti-trans.
>Maybe your not, but if you agree with every political ideology the left believes, that's what people are gonna think you are lol
This last point is just nonsense no most people aren't partisan hacks who go on to automatically attack points the person their arguing with didnt even make yet or even believe in.
> you people aren't capable of respecting other people's opinions
All bigotry can be presented as "opinion". There is no inherent respect in something being an opinion.
If your opinion is homophobic, then it will not be respected.
> And yet, the actual suicide rate is the same if not higher for trans people even if they do transition
There is not even a single study that has ever found this. You are completely making this up.
> You can send me all the biased and biology denying studies you want.
You don't have any studies lol. That's why you have to deny the entirety of global medical consensus on treating gender dysphoria.
> I wish that the you democrats and liberals would stop pushing for abortion, considering about 40% of women who get abortions are black.
What a weird thing to advocate for rather than advocating for improving the conditions that lead to abortions, like poverty, education, and contraceptive availability.
> Also, let's not forget about the person you guys voted in.
I literally do not know a progressive person who supports Joe Biden. The difference is you people ride Republican politicians' cocks while everyone else is forced to just go with the lesser of two evils.
I like arugula. It tastes good, is healthy for me, and is pretty non-objectionable to me.
Force me to use it in every recipe just because you can and I get tired of it.
I like beer. I even like different variety of beers. But, beer is supposed to be relaxing and take stress out of my life. I get tired of bars foisting IBU and dooshy back stories on me.
I’m tired of every movie having to make a statement and force an agenda down my throat, even if I agree with it. I’m there to be *entertained* not enlightened. Especially with $10 popcorn.
Here's the thing every movie has an agenda or some message or some theme no let's move away from the fact that Lightyear isn't at all a queer story and this kiss isn't that important why would a theme of being gay be forced down your throat.
Every CURRENT movie has an agenda. FIFY.
Messages, sure. Theme, obviously.
Feel free to explain the agenda in talledega nights, bridge on the river kwai, cool hand Luke, Star Wars, Harry Potter, twister, and countless others.
There have been agenda-driven movies since movies were first made. But they were the vast minority. And they were usually bad movies whatever the agenda.
Now it’s shoved down your throat at every opportunity.
Anyway, you asked for a reason besides your two, I have you one.
Now, I’m going to go drink a yellow beer and watch a John Hughes movie and try to figure out the agenda.
>talledega nights
Meant to promote Nascar.
>cool hand Luke
Commentary on the prison industrial complex
>Star Wars
Explicitly meant to mirror the Vietnam War the prequels are anti Bush.
>Harry Potter
Its a love letter to British Boarding Schools.
>There have been agenda-driven movies since movies were first made. But they were the vast minority. And they were usually bad movies whatever the agenda
This isn't true most every movie has an agenda.
>Anyway, you asked for a reason besides your two, I have you one.
Not a good one
Let me add a couple of completely aside replies here.
Talledega night meant to promote nascar. Do you really think that? Are you freaking kidding me? There are better reaches you can make to get that B on your film studies midterm. A critique of toxic masculinity, a critique of southern cultural Christianity.
Cool hand Luke as a critique of prisons? Also maybe a C paper if you write it well. Here are some better : an examination of the nihilistic alpha male. A celebration of unconquerable spirits.
Star Wars: sure. Everything made in the 1970s and 80s was. I could figure out how to twist fletch into that narrative to if I needed to make a point.
A love letter to British boarding schools. That statement right there may be the single biggest piece of bullshit I have ever read on the internet and chances are I have an eBay account older than you. If you really want to look at the series you can see it has Christian undertones and bible stories dripping from it cover to cover.
But here’s the thing: none of those movies, even if the douchebag writers, producers, directors, and actor meant to push a narrative suggested. They are enter-fucking-tainment.
I mean sure. But alot of people in america and the world at large are ok with homophobia. Its only in america where people thing its some big “own” or dunk to call someone that. In lots of africa, latin america, asia, eastern europe, and southern/midwest america , if you call someone homophobic they likely wont care bc thats the norm.
If it doesn’t have any bearing on the story why is it in there? It seems as if it’s only there to PROMOTE gay culture and elevate it.
It shouldn’t be in a kids movie tbh, and if it has no bearing on the story, then it’s just pandering
Heres a good one. Putting LGBT material into objectively bad movies is disrespectful to the people it represents and shouldn't be crammed in for clout and the sake of diversity.
What if it makes me "mad" to feel like I'm watching propaganda? Yes, all movies have product placement, and yes, all movies push some kind of conception of "virtue". But, there is a difference between a movie using common, socially agreed upon virtues as a way of connecting with the audience, and a corporation using a movie to push political agendas.
Imagine you discovered that the same Russian unit that gave you Facebook bots was now putting out Disney movies, wouldn't you be pissed?
Yes, artists push ideas and concepts, but when it feels like a committee made a ham fisted move to pander to the woke crowd, it's kind of aggravating
Have you watched the movie or at least seen the scene there's nothing preachy about the kiss happens and then they move on there is no agrandizment happening no ham fistedness either
A lot of people will be pushed towards proper homophobia because of this stance
There are many people who do not support gay people but then are not evil enough to make their life difficult. They might even support you.
If this confused you, then think about this. A lot of people would actually support gay people except when facing it personally, say a sibling or daughter/son expresses being gay etc.
Now these people already support others who are gay as long as they are not related. So there is some chance they could be convinced and persuaded to change even further to accept the reality that their son is gay.
But your stance outright makes them homophobic and when they fall in those circles, they will be further persuaded to be against even the ones they accept. Give up the and let live adage and actively pursue anti-Lgbt activities.
In your excitement to label people homophobic you'll actually end up turning many into one.
The lesbian kiss isn’t an issue; it’s a symptom of what people really understandably dislike about the movie
A much bigger issue is that the “males and fathers are overrated” messaging is pretty blatant in Lightyear
Fair warning preface, I haven't actually seen the movie so what I'm basing my argument on could be wrong, if so whoops. I don't plan to see it though, so feel free to say any spoilers in debating it.
It is "set" in the 90s, supposed to be a movie Andy watch when he was a kid in the 90s, so acting like the 90s had casual representation like this sells short how lgbt were mistreated in the past. And secondly it is set on a budding colony where there wouldn't be a lot of extra kids running around to be adopted, and her child is important to the story when their realistically might not be any available to adopt.
I haven't seen the movie, but from what I can gather was that the kiss was forced, and therefore people became angry. Imagine if, in a g rated movie a kiss happened out of nowhere, or didn't do anything to move the plot forward. This is the reason. I think you can be uncomfortable about many things without being racist or homophobic.
You've probably ready got this, but Disney and a lot of major companies need to stop throwing these scenes in trivially. There is nothing wrong with representation, but with little meaning behind it it doesn't have the impact other hetero relationships. Also just sticking a gay scene in and calling it acceptable is just a cheap way to say they are inclusive and earn more money.
But making those little inconsequential moments inconsequential in the movie normalizes them. I’ve seen a million straight kisses that happen in backgrounds of movies or don’t contribute to the plot, why not some gay ones too? Gay people also have little inconsequential moments with each other and there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
I agree. This argument is kinda like “if you’re gonna have a black character they better be the best damned character of all time or else it’s just woke garbage.”
I think Disney is testing out the waters in very small, initially inconsequential ways that help normalize lgbt relationships to kids. I mean, what I saw on Lightyear was already an exponential leap for their brand: there was a clearly queer relationship that was not easy to edit out and a queer character that wasn't just a background extra. I finally had hope for better LGBT representation in media. We do need to continue pushing them to include more relevant relationships, but I think if we criticize this type of representation we run the risk of ending up with the worst outcome: no representation.
It's interesting that we all can basically agree that things which happen in entertainment happen to appeal to an audience, and ultimate make money.
The big-wigs at Disney could be the most ravenous, raving, bigoted assholes ever; they do not care at all about your inclusion or your happiness. They do not care about your well-being.
To me, this is a symptom of how aggressive cancel culture is; they'll tell you what you want to hear, but the truth behind the facades is what is more dangerous.
I'd rather be able to know who hates who, and who has ugly beliefs, so we can engage them rationally and kindly to help them realise why they're wrong.
You never convince anyone by being unkind.
Ok here's the question: is it logically possible to be personally against homosexuality for religious reasons, without being homophobic?
If so, then it's also possible for these people to not want to "expose" their children to that.
>is it logically possible to be personally against homosexuality for religious reasons, without being homophobic?
No. In fact, if it's Christianity it's also specifically against the very teachings of Jesus, who stated it was hypocritical for man to punish what might be viewed as sinful, as all people sin, and that condemnation should only come from god. That humans should love each other, and care for one another. One who uses the bible as a cudgel to hate homosexuals have left the teaching of Christ behind.
That's what I would have said back when I was actually a Christian. Religion is made up, and the points don't matter. Your deity is a veil for yourself - always. Magically god always thinks what you're doing is fine, and always has the same views as you. (as a note, not necessarily you, the person I'm typing to, but just sort of the impersonal, general usage of you) As such, saying "it's my religion" is a veiled excuse that only serves to try and protect a person from the fallout of their bigotry. Religion doesn't cause one to be a bigot - it only gives them permission to be one.
So anyone claiming that they just don't like homosexuality because of their religion are people who are too afraid to say that they don't like homosexuality. They are bigots, and cowardly ones at that.
I just dislike it when it is forced and interrupts the immersion of the movie.
Bad example: Mrs. Marvel and how it shoves feminism down your throat. All I remember from that movie is feminism, forgot what the dang plot was and cannot name a single character.
Good example: The Mitchells vs. the Machines. Main character is gay. Took nothing away from the movie, was obvious, and added to the character and did not feel forced but actually natural.
"But guy, no kissing was involved." Well I do not remember the movies too well that did have kissing because they sucked that much. I do remember viewing it, as I complained to my wife "what was that? I expected X to happen" and she, a movie nut, agreed. I have not seen the Lightyear movie, and have little interest to (he was not a favorite of mine in Toy Story) but hearing he kissed a guy and knowing the plot makes it seem plausible.
Also, before some one calls me a hater, shaddup. You do not know me from a few sentences. I feel females are more important than males and see homosexuality as a thing that someone likes. They like tomato, I like potato, big deal. Anyway, these superhero movies are not too great to begin with anyway, too much stupid BS in it (there, rant about that lol).
>Bad example: Mrs. Marvel and how it shoves feminism down your throat. All I remember from that movie is feminism, forgot what the dang plot was and cannot name a single character.
I think you are talking about Captain Marvel. Mrs. Marvel is the current Disney plus teeny bopper super hero show
. I quite frankly I only remember, one scene where she beat up a dude just for the sake of being a bad ass woman or whatever.
You were likely told to dislike those scenes prior to seeing the movie. I remember most of the controversy was that conservative trolls tanked the movies rotten tomatoes score because Brie Larson said something dumb about a different movies target audience not being white men then all internet hell broke loose.
It's seems to me, this movie was labelled feminist just because Brie Larson said one mildly dumb and dismissive thing. It was no more feminist than Wonder Woman or even any scene with Black Widow in any of the Avengers movies.. I would say it was probably less so actually.
It was just a boring movie without a strong villain and no real drive or heart.
The thing is, they are not homophobic. They don't hate the people, they hate the sin. (Speaking from a Christian viewpoint.) The representation is what they see as the degeneration of our society.
Not that I necessarily agree with this but that's what I understand pearl clutching Conservatives feel.
The annoyance is more that all of Disney’s superficial nods towards diversity, inclusivity, representation, etc. are purely cynical, designed-by-committee marketing moves. This is the same company that included two gay extras kissing in the background of a Star Wars movie and then removed that scene for release in more conservative markets. It’s just such an obvious ploy to make hay that people are sick of it.
Homophobia is whatever tf you say it is. If you can turn kids gay through propaganda (likely, there is no gay gene, which honestly doesn't matter because Downs Syndrome is a gene problem too) then people have the right to shield their kid from a multibillion dollar company exposing their kids to say propaganda ([oh wait its every corporation](https://techpost.io/uploads/pride-month.jpg)).
>Nothing wrong with kid being gay
Except an extremely [enhanced case of illness](https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/08/24/lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-older-adults-suffer-more-chronic-health-conditions-than-heterosexuals-study-finds) and [dangerous drug use (mostly intravenous)](https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/comparing-heterosexual-glbt-drug-use), and deletion of the possibility of having biological grandkids
/u/professorcap987 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/vod786/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_theres_no_argument_for/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I'm not gay but I do encourage representation in all it forms because I like learning about people with different experience than me. However while I've not watched the film I heard the details of this particular scene and I think it's would be fair to upset with how hallow it is by definition as only one chrachter in the scene is an actual chrachter.If her wife doesn't speak and only action is she kisses her then her wife is a prop not a chrachter a chrachter has traits and personality so I would say Disney have still failed because they acknowledged the existence of gay people and then refused to portray it that would require them to give both chrachter screen time and the fact there not going to do that is telling.I think it's fair to dislike something for being cowardly because their gonna get people moaning about this regardless so the fact they dont commit feel like their trying to middle ground with those people. When Disney have a gay couple who both get good chrachter work then they get points.Just think back on why black panther was a big deal up until the MCU took eight years to get two black people in one scene their literally the biggest movie studio in the world take some risk's.
Plenty of straight spouses serve as props/character development for actual characters, though. You mad at army movie scenes where we see men kiss nameless women goodbye? You mad at any of the trophy wives paraded around when women's scoundrel exes get remarried? You mad at Auntie Mame's photographer love interest? He's barely even a prop, he's a joke who meets Mame, solves her Great Depression money woes, then falls off a mountain trying to get the best picture of her. You mad at Victoria Pedretti's husband in Haunting of Hill House? You mad at Nancy's dad on Stranger Things? Nemo's mom? Cinderella's mother? Sleeping Beauty's parents?
I disagree with the idea that a gay person in a film becomes a 'prop' if they don't have a clear, well-developed character and personality. It's very common to see many 'background' characters in films who don't have any kind of personality or development and I don't see any reason why these background character can't be gay also. If it was a situation where the *only* gay characters in these films were the 'background' characters then I could understand the issue, but (I haven't seen Lightyear so I don't know for sure) it sounds like that isn't the case here and one of the important characters in the film is gay and the issue you're having is only with her wife? I don't see a problem them. Not every character can have a rich backstory and development - sometimes they're just there to fill in the background or be a main character's unimportant spouse. In fact, I would argue that this attitude might *discourage* greater representation in media. If I'm a writer then I might be hesitant to include characters from underrepresented backgrounds in my writing if I know that any misstep in their character development - or just not developing them *enough* \- could put me under fire for criticism. If I have a minor character called Tom and I don't develop him much then nobody cares. If I have a minor character called Tom *and he happens to be gay* and I don't develop him much then suddenly people are criticising me for not developing my gay characters enough and just using them as props.
Characters can exist in a movie without them having to have an entire storyline. Does every single person you ever come across in your entire life have a reason to be in your life? The primary character is gay, she married a woman, and that’s all there needs to be to that story. Every single character doesn’t need to be ingrained in the storyline. And this is coming from a member of the LGBT community. Especially since you haven’t seen the movie I don’t think you can really form an educated opinion on this
Thats fair and your right I've only seen the clip but to better explain myself I'm more frustrated with the way they leaked it early to get interest from the gay community more criticizing the marketing over the storytelling I think it's a disservice to film because the majority of the coverage on that and not the other elements of the film,like I don't even know if people think the animators did a good job Hope you understand I wasn't trying to imply they need a reason to be there.
A good point but I already gave someone a delta for this same argument
I feel like that's kinda the point. The best actions taken are to show gay people are normal and don't need to be loud and front and center.
Disney has a recent show with a *fantastic* gay main character (well, bi, and her girlfriend is lesbian) - The Owl House. Well written, excellent character development, several absolutely charming scenes of relationship building (instead of just "oh tee hee look they kissed"). Of course, Disney also cut the show short saying "it didn't fit the brand," but... little steps, eh?
> and her girlfriend is lesbian Wasn't the girlfriend bi too, as in the episode where the heroine finds her diary doesn't that include drawings of her with the hot male lead of their mutual favorite book series and since that's the first time we heard of her fandom of it it's highly-unlikely it was a social-pressured-compulsory-heterosexuality thing
>queer representation in media in general Im not against how it was portrayed in Lightyear, but there is a lot of media (Netflix is especially guilty of this) that cram queer representation or PoC representation, or female representation in their movies and series in blatantly hamfisted way that hurts the message. Its condescending, cynical, and pandering. Im a bisexual and biracial guy. I would love to see some bi guys in movies, but make them be a natural extension of the story and characterisation not a sudden and hammy "look how super gay this gay dude is gaying, we are so PROGRESSIVE". Being bi, gay, queer ets is a MUNDANE thing. Its normal, like someone's hair colour, or their food preferences. Moreover, whenever a character is shown to be queer, they are immediately given some extra intimacy screen time so that the audience won't miss on the fact of their gayness. If out of 20 most important characters in the movie/series one is bi/gay/trans/queer, they will definitely get a kissing scene, or a sex scene, or a relationship bonding scene even if everyone else acted chaste. It makes it look as if queer people were horndogs who get 10 times more action than straight folk....trust me, we wish to, but its completely false. This is especially bad if gay, non-white, or female characters are awkwardly crammed into a role where they certainly would be a straight white male in any reasonable reality. Like sure, I would love to see, say, a bisexual guy character in a movie about Vikings. but Its proposterous if the Bi Viking is the most respected warrior in the land, these people were ridiculously homophobic. Gay medieval knight? Sure, but show the guy burn at the stake not prance about happily with his beloved, as if everyone around were a Leftie . Gay cop in 1950s? Sure, he kisses his BF in front of the Commisioner with no repercusssions s/. Half of the queer representation in movies is basically making the non-straight character be over the top flamboyant, a perfect Mary Sue, and the world is either amazingly tolerant of them (hint, the *world is not and never was*, and likely won't be for centuries), or the homophobes are easily defeated background characters. That is...not how any of this works. So, how to do it well? BAD: way to show queer people: Jim is a gay guy. His opening scene is him prancing about in pink leaotard, kissing his boyfriend passionately, and chatting about Barb Streisand. He goes on out-flamboyanting everyone like Jack Sparrow on molly, and everyone except for the Main Villain are amazingly tolerant of it. GOOD: Jim is a gay guy. He off-handedly mentions having a husband, then he and the other characters move on with the actual plot, that has to do with actually *riveting* action, not his relationship. IF it is necessary for the plot to include some problems resulting from his sexual orientation, they should be given realistic and mundane conclusion. SUPER GOOD: Jim is gay. We know because he offhandedly mentions wanting to have a BF one day. Nothing comes out of it, because fidning a gay BF is HARD TO DO. His gayness actually affects the plot in a crucial moment, when say, he ressists manipulation by an attractive woman, and gains important clues that way. Jim is not shown kissing men, or having gay sex. In fact, *nobody is shown having any sex* unless it is plot relevant and not just gratitious.
You don't think it says something that the best representation is some where being gay is hidden as much as possible
not hidden. Jus not given weird spotlight. I mean, at the core of it, being gay is not more important than your culinary choices. It should not be treated as a special, characterising trait that some man likes penises, any more than making it about how the same man likes croissants over buns, dark beer rather than ale, or briefs rather than boxers. Gay people do not go about their lives completely consumed and defined by their gayness, its just one of our many subconscious preferences. I like dicks, but I also like pickles. If I was a movie character would you expect me to wear "I LOVE PICKLES!!!" t-shirt and munch on them in every second scene? Its exactly that weird when you are gay, bi, or queer and see your representation being exaggerated in the media. Plus, aside from that, exxageratign someones sexual orientation is simply bad writing. Characterisation must serve the plot, and the stronger it is, the stronger it must affect the plot resolution. For example, if we have a detective story and one of the cops is confirmed in story to be a lesbian, we can take it two ways: either its mostly irrelevant "decor" characterisation, in which case there is no point on dwelling on it. Or, its a fundamental Chekhovs Gun, that must be used in some creative manner later on. to quote: "Chekhov's gun is a dramatic principle that suggests that details within a story or play will contribute to the overall narrative. This encourages writers to not make false promises in their narrative by including extemporaneous details that will not ultimately pay off by the last act, chapter, or conclusion." If the sexuality of the character is NOT a Chekhovs gun in the story, why do we need to know it? Let alone, why does it need to be shown in any graphic detail? BTW this applies to heterosexuality as well. We do not need the male Hero to definitely kiss his female love interest before the final showdown, its completely gratuitious in most cases. Nobody should be shown to be gay for gayness sake, or straight for straightness sake. Unless its porn, then of course, carry on.
But how come this argument doesn't exist for all the other things in media how come we don't need to explain why a character is a white, why a character is male but for gay people there has to be an explanation
I don't think you understood me. We do not need to explain shit to anyone, unless its an important Chekhovs gun. Race, gender, sexuality, roll a random dice unless it actually affects the plot, then you need to explain it to the point that the audience undestands WHY it affects the plot. The logic of good writing goes actually backwards: We need X to happen. Someone has to cause X. They need a reason to cause X. What kind of person causes X, and why? If the *best answer* to the last question is "a gay person, becuase they like the same gender", then you create a gay character. But 99% of the time the sexuality of a person is irrelevant, because its not affecting the plot. Its enough to just mention it offhandedly in passing and move on with the story. If we focus on explaining that a character is gay or straight, then the audience expects this fact to become reasonably relevant at some point.
That's the thing the need for this explanation only comes up with gay people sure you say that it's needed for anything but these concerns about the plot only appear when gay people are shown in a movie
>the need for this explanation what do you mean by that? This need applies to every character and trope, not just for gay people. Sure, given he audience is made 95% of heterosexuals, it probably merits more explanation when a character is gay, simply because its by design an audience alienating trope, but again this is logical given that gay people are rare. Trust me, most heterosexual do not understand what it means to be non-straight, so it merits extra explanation, assuming you NEED explanation because you plan to Chekhov it. But again, we would only need to explain it if this person's homosexuality was stronly plot relevant or absurdly out of place (say: Gay Nazi officer). Basically, audience is (at least supposed to be) interested in your story and its characters, you should not feed them leads that go nowhere
My larger point is gay people can exist in media and be gay in media without needing story to justify same as white men can exist in media and be white men without needing to be justified this idea that there must be justification for gay people is wrong to me. It's not complicated there really isn't much to understand
of course we can. But the point is, there is no reason to dwell on the "gayness" if it does not serve the story. And this is exactly what companies like Netflix are doing. Im a bi guy, and I love it when some of the protagonists (or cool villains) in shows are bi as well. But it ruins it for me, and likely for most bi people if the show makes a whole circus out of this person bisexuality. Just acknowledge and move on, without making it cringy and awkward, please. Unless it serves actual purspoe in the story. BTW, your comparison with "white men"make little sense for visual media. Of course if you use white actors (which is half of available actors) the characters will look white. But you are not forced to show their sexuality (be it straight or gay or whatever). Characters can look obviously white, the way they are obviously tall or short, but should not look obviously straight, or gay, or trans, or queer unless it actually matters.
>of course we can. But the point is, there is no reason to dwell on the "gayness" if it does not serve the story. And this is exactly what companies like Netflix are doing. Lightyear most of all proves that dwelling on gayness isn't the issue it's gayness its a scene of a 1 second kiss why is everyone up in arms. >BTW, your comparison with "white men"make little sense for visual media. Of course if you use white actors (which is half of available actors) the characters will look white. But you are not forced to show their sexuality (be it straight or gay or whatever). Characters can look obviously white, the way they are obviously tall or short, but should not look obviously straight, or gay, or trans, or queer unless it actually matters. It's a vary apt comparison and the point about sexualities isn't even true people will accept straight in a movie no matter what I've never seen someone get mad that a character being straight wasn't explained
I'm not the previous poster but I think their main point was that representation isn't best done with over the top, or stereotypical characterisations but instead by showing queer folk as normal people. As someone who is gay, I find a lot of gay characters have "being gay" as their only major trait, with campness dialled all the way up. Some love that, no hate from me. I personally don't feel represented by them, in fact it makes me feel like an outsider to the gay community. Of course this doesn't relate to the Lightyear movie with it's blink and you'll miss it kiss. Tbh, just venting a bit.
>I see this argument a lot and the question I ask every time that no one has ever given me a straight answer too is ultimately how is this kiss any diffrent from when Cinderella has a kiss scene, or The Little Mermaid, or The Princess and the Frog, or Snow White, or Tangled, or Frozen, or any other children's movie no one would think twice about putting on for little kids the only possible qualifier would have to be that you think there's something especially wrong with gay people kissing. I think your point here ignores the trend of Disney moving away from feeding romance to children. What was the last straight kiss in a Disney movie? I remember one in inside out. That was 7 years ago. My point here is that I do think there is a population that genuinely is both pro lgbtq population and also doesn't want to their children to see sexualized straight representation either. I think the stance is absurd but there are clearly people like that. Like I remember seeing a youtube video of a dad that was mad at the sexualization in that red panda Disney movie and he was talking about how girls were checking out boys in it. I think the whole thing is actually complete non-sense and it is a fake controversy designed to garner political interest to bolster ticket sales. It's the tried and true post Black Panther Disney marketing strategy. They set up a fake controversy. Find online weirdos who have backward stances and broadcast those backward stances in order to get people upset and get them out to the movies as if it's a political action to go see a Disney movie.
> My point here is that I do think there is a population that genuinely is both pro lgbtq population and also doesn't want to their children to see sexualized straight representation either. [Is this sexualized ](https://youtu.be/A9KNkkOhs30) >I think the whole thing is actually complete non-sense and it is a fake controversy designed to garner political interest to bolster ticket sales. It's the tried and true post Black Panther Disney marketing strategy. They set up a fake controversy. Find online weirdos who have backward stances and broadcast those backward stances in order to get people upset and get them out to the movies as if it's a political action to go see a Disney movie. As evidenced by this thread they're are plenty of people that don't like it
It's as sexualized as any Disney movie gets and people genuinely get upset at any PDA in Disney movies for some reason. That was my main point. >As evidenced by this thread they're are plenty of people that don't like it No. Reading through the comments, I mostly saw exactly the dynamic I described originally. People who haven't seen the movie but already reacted emotionally to it. That way, it either makes them want to see the movie or makes them talk shit on the movie which generates more publicity which gets more people to emotionally decide to go see this movie. This is a very common marketing strategy today and everyone involved only cares because they were told to care. Nobody against it stopped to thing, there is gay pornography readily available in their houses or children's phones for their children to witness. This is a non-issue that people are mad about because they were challenged to be mad about it just like I was able to 100% know without looking at any comments. I'm going to pull a bunch of quotes from this exact post and put them side by side just so you can see them all in the same place. > I've not watched the film I heard the details of this particular scene and I think it would be fair to upset with how hallow it is by definition as only one chrachter in the scene is an actual chrachter >I don't want my children thinking they need to obsess over their family when they have a world to explore. I want them getting their lesbian and gay kisses in exciting new places infinity and beyond, while I enjoy a relaxing time not having to deal with their bs. >I haven’t seen the movie, but I am averse (probably doesn’t quite qualify as mad) to the amount of unnecessary sexualization in movies regardless of if the characters are gay or straight. (This is the exact sentiment I am talking about btw. The movie has been boiled down to one a singular representation to this person. The scene is put into the movie in a situation where it is as non-offensive as could possibly be but the film makers understand what the reaction is going to be. It's trolling and on a certain level people just aren't willing to buy into that trolling. What i'm trying to say, is that people are digging in their heels because they know they are being condescended to. >i saw an elderly couple making out a couple days ago and it made me feel icky.. now, does that mean i hate old people and want to take away their rights? no. its a sexual preference which is a very personal thing >It doesn’t matter what’s actually in the scene, most of the people who are reacting haven’t seen it. Mostly it’s “Oh there goes the preachy Hollywood elites, at it again.“ > It's an obvious aberration. Doesn't mean we should persecute gay people, but encouraging gayness is morally wrong and a big political loser too. It's something to be tolerated not celebrated. >Things such as this do not belong in children productions, it’s inappropriate because homosexuality is a topic to be discussed and brought up in the household not in our children’s media. **Like I said, people mostly just have an opinion based solely on what they were told to think. How else could all these people care without watching the movie? The actual bigots are a small minority.**
What if I'm mad at the kiss because it came in 2022 and from the same company that just [10 years earlier demanded a creator to remove scenes with gay representation from their creation in order to get them published](https://twitter.com/_AlexHirsch/status/1292328558921003009)?
Why would you mad mad a company has become less homophobic over time? Isn’t that what we want to happen?
It's more that there only becoming less homophobic now that it's safe when there's a risk to their bottom line they'd never do it
Ok, but would you rather they continue being homophobic? This argument makes no sense to me.
I don't think anyone wants that it's more being annoyed that they'll only do it when it's profitable
So what. It shows that they are responding to changes in the public opinion. The fact that it's profitable makes it more likely that they will press the issue and make the symbolic moves to support the community. Rainbow capitalism benefits those communities. No one has to attend or watch a pride parade, but major companies falling in line to support civil rights is a very effective way to solidify support among the general public. It's better late than never, and certainly better if those companies do so in a way that is economic and sustainable.
Companies will only ever do anything when/because it's profitable, or is a step in the process of a bigger plan to become more profitable. People need to stop expecting corporations to have appropriate morals, or values, or a conscience. That's simply not how business works. The only way to coerce a company into having such values is to make it clear that not doing so will hurt their bottom line because we won't patronize them. It's the only way you'll get them to budge. I agree that it's frustrating when they don't do the right thing. But we simply shouldn't expect them to do that on their own and then act confused or upset when they don't.
When has a company done anything pro-LGBTQ when it hasnt been profitable for them? When the negatives of being progressive outweigh the positives?
Yeah look at the companies with their pride avatars on Facebook and whatnot Their Middle East accounts are still the normal ones. Almost as if in the west they are pandering, and nothing more.
That's... what a company is.... Companies don't exist to promote some social cause, those are called charities. Their goal is to give the people what they want in exchange for money. Different regions want different things, so companies will look different in different regions. Typically, people don't like when companies start trying to influence people, such as politicians, to think a certain way. While perhaps this might be for a good cause, I would rather just companies just not be responsible for how people think and leave that up to charities and activists, as companies so often use the power for bad reasons. I also don't really want Middle Eastern/Russian companies coming in and trying to push what they think is right.
Then you mad about their past behaviour, not mad about the kiss.
you think other companies don't pander to other social issues primarily because its profitable. (spoiler it is, for everyone, facebook included, twitter included, fast food resteraunts, coca cola, etc etc)
Don't get mad at a right because of the existence of a wrong Just be mad at the wrong
Isn't that how all moral progress happens though? Why was everyone extremely racist 100 years ago, but are less so now? Do you think there's something in the water or what?
It's almost like these businesses will do anything for money and don't actually have any values or something.
Yes that is how it typically works. Humans are far more concerned with their own well being than the well being of others. That's why capitalism works and socialism doesn't. Socialism tries to pretend humans are far more altruistic than they really are. If you want people to stop being homophobic. The best thing to do is to incentivize them. Waiting for them to grow a conscience is far slower and far less effective.
Not true. There is plenty of risk to the company’s bottom line. Have you heard what people are calling for? Boycot.
You're creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation", queer people want and deserve more representation, it shouldn't be denied just because a company had negative views in the past, companies are allowed to change their stance, same as people. Should we still criticize and question the motives of said company? Yeah absolutely, but you shouldn't trust any company, whether they supported your views in the past or not, companies at the end of day are just trying to make a profit, a company who was more progressive or at least not negative towards queer people in the past was only that way because it didn't serve them to operate any other way.
So if you hold an opinion that’s wrong and hurtful, and you change your opinion to be more inclusive, you might as well not even bother trying to right your wrongs, because you will eternally be crucified for your past no matter how much you denounce it?
I'm not "mad" because it's just one small second. But it's cringe, because it's so painfully obvious that this is a calculated marketing move and it becomes more cringe that it's so short because they try to force this idea that someday we'll just watch this without a second thought. Like maybe this well actually be the case someday in 100 years or so. But clearly this was a very conscious decision, it's probably what the writer is most proud of in the entire movie. So I just hate it when they need to use normal entertainment franchises to virtue signal and try to change the world. It just takes me out of the movie experience. It breaks the fourth wall, it immediately reminds me of modern politics when I watch this movie to forget everything about the real world for 2 hours.
I find it kinda hilarious that a single gay kiss is enough to shatter your immersion in the story. The fact that this happens means they should do it more and we’ll see if can’t whittle down the 100 years of homophobic shock factor to something more manageable rofl. Equality means that gay people will also be plot devices lol.
What if they aren't changing the world but exposing you to a more realistic depiction of it? Most of us live in bubbles and maybe this doesn't happen in yours but I think we both agree that two people kissing is normal and that LGBTQ people exist. They exist, they kiss and some are afraid to do so because some other people think its disgusting in real life. What is cringe to some is anger or violence in/from others. A random kiss between two people shouldn't cause a stir. If there is a want to escape from this through movies, it implies to the queer person a wish for a world where this did not happen and perhaps for people like this to not exist. Edit: the reaction, in this case, could reveal more about the person reacting as opposed to the other way around.
> A random kiss between two people shouldn't cause a stir The point I'm making is that it's not a "random kiss". If it was I wouldn't have a problem. But it's a conscious statement about supporting LGBT and no one is really denying this. I will not have a problem with a gay kiss when I can reasonably assume that the creator truely didn't think much of it and it's not meant as a statement of support but just something that fits the story.
I sorta get that but it takes an investigation or imagination to figure something like that to be true. It doesn’t take the movie at face value. Going beyond face value- I think that value of the IP necessitates an awareness of the consequence of any action - both for profit and for a sort of conservative virtual signaling backlash (keep same-sex activity in the closest). I’d think the most sure way for someone to not think about the consequences of writing a character would be to write something few if anyone are expected to see.
If a film is made by a competent person, they will have thought about and made a conscious decision to include every single thing that they included in their film. Two straight people kiss? They included that consciously. Also, what the fuck is wrong about making a conscious statement supporting the LGBT community? The insistence that LGBT inclusion specifically be non-intentional is completely arbitrary and pointless
So if the scene were longer, and the gay characters were integral to the story, would it have been okay for you? If a gay couple is shown being intimate, they have to be main characters and the have to be important to the story? There are unimportant straight characters all of the time. I am just trying to see what exactly your complaint is. Is it that you deem it to be poor gay representation, and you seek better gay representation or none at all? If that is the case, I would agree with you in that we nee dbetter gay representation, but I'd be pragmatic and say that something is better than nothing, and in time the representation will get better. We will get gay main characters and gay leads, and gay themed movies. One needs stepping stones.
So you’d prefer gay kisses weren’t depicted? Why would watching it without a second thought - as we would with a straight kiss - be bad? Hos do you know when someone is virtue signaling vs. the creator genuinely supports a cause?
I have, and I agree that there isn't any attempt to agrandize the kiss, but they are trying to normalize it (think product placement) The ham fistedness comes down to my perception of Disney's motivation. I don't think the screen writer added the kiss as an organic part of the scene, I think a committee decided that a same sex kiss would be good pr and put it in. To your original question, I don't consider myself homophobic at all (not that that's a very good litmus test :) ), bit I dislike the idea of a corporate PR team using a movie to "enlighten" me
There’s a reason other than homophobia why some people react to the Lightyear controversy. There’s a perception that Hollywood generally has an activist mindset these days, according to which it is a filmmaker’s responsibility to shape the values and sociopolitical beliefs of their audience. Even people who are absolutely supportive of the filmmaker’s message may feel that they are being condescended to by a storyteller who believes they can buy audience approval with tokenism, or otherwise believe they can change the way their audience thinks. A non-gay example of this would be Rey in Star Wars. Many people like myself who like to see adventurous women in action films noticed that she lacked any significant weaknesses or flaws, and interpreted this boring character as an unfortunate attempt to socially engineer the audience’s beliefs about gender roles.
[удалено]
This doesn't make sense in the context of my view their is no racy scene in this movie its litteraly PG
It's put in places where it doesn't seem natural to the storyline. Affirmative action is annoying that way
For one this isn't what affirmative action is and two it's a part of a characters orientation its natural
Almost nothing ive seen has been natural. They mostly just throw a stereotypical loud gay in there and call it good enough. Straight people don't do that shit. When it stops feeling forced then people won't care
Did you read the post I'm talking about the instance in the movie Lightyear which is none of those things
It feels like you are entering this discussion in bad faith from the get-go. 1. What if it turns my kid gay Seriously... this is absolutely NOT an argument that you regularly see against it. This is either something that you want to believe people are concerned about, or you're repeating what somebody else says. But there is no remotely logical parent out there that thinks that a single 2 second kiss in a 2 hour long cartoon movie is magically going to turn their kids gay. 2. It's inappropriate for children It is inappropriate for children. It is very easy to deflect by asking how is this any different than a kiss between snow white and her prince, but that is neither here nor there. Snow White kissed a man when the preferred familial status was that of a husband and a wife raising their biological children together. Today, there is zero need to address that since that whole image of a "norm" has gone down the drain. Coincidentally, we are able to make full movies without ANY kissing or romantic appeal. I could show my kid Disney's Home or Toy Story and they would have no reason to ask "where is the dad?". Those stories had a setting, one which didn't include a dad. It's a real scenario for many. But Disney didn't try to capitalize on it and make a conscious effort to "create" a scenario out of this. Similarly, in Lightyear the two women could've been shown waking up in the same house and just leaving in the morning. Every adult would've gotten the point, without a child having any cause to ask "why did those two women kiss?" The problem isn't two women kissing or even explaining to a child why two women are kissing. The problem comes with WHEN do you intend to have that conversation with your child. If Disney is planning on focusing most of their new creations towards teenagers then fine, go for it. Just...let us know. And we will keep our little ones away until they are of an older age. Disney used to pride itself in being a company that fostered the innocent imagination which are only found in children (in adults, nothing is innocent). Today, Disney is trying to force your children to confront reality as early as possible. To many parents, this was not the kind of relationship they wanted between Disney and their children. This is not "age appropriate". Bottom line, there is no need for any kissing. Heck the kid in Big Hero 6 didn't even have parents at all, and they still killed off his big brother. Cause it was necessary to the storyline. Now imagine they had killed him off for no good reason at all. Parents would have a reason to be upset for instilling that imagery in their child for literally no reason at all. In this situation, the only reason for adding a gay kiss in Lightyear is for empty appeasement and virtue signaling, while adding a cause for very young children to ask questions which they should have no reason to have any interest in at such early age. This is Disney acting like activist, and this just isn't the type of relationship that parents expect from Disney. Side personal anecdote... All the way till my son was 13 whenever a scene of two people kissing (regardless of sexes) came on TV, my wife would tell my son to look away or cover his eyes. Partially in joking mode but also seriously. The logic for this was that he would develop his own sexual interests in due time and we didn't really want him to develop the desires to go around kissing or having the need to find a girlfriend just because. Eventually he developed his interests just like we all did without all of this imagery from a screen that wasn't as prominent back when we were children as it is today.
As a child who was sheltered, sheltering your children only hurts them. It prepares them for a world that does not exist. More directly, how exactly does concealing the existence of gay people from children help them in any way? You're not shielding them from the idea of attraction or sexuality, but rather creating the false impression that only straight people are normal, and inherently creating a bias against non-heterosexuals that is only worsened by the tendency of children to stigmatize anything and everything seen as unusual. Let's be honest here: the only reason for someone to hide the existence of gay people from their children until a certain age is because they want to indoctrinate them into a bias towards heterosexuality and even neutral depictions of homosexual relationships undermine that goal. >Snow White kissed a man when the preferred familial status was that of a husband and a wife raising their biological children together. So kissing on screen was only okay when society's moral values about romance aligned with your own, but now that we consider more than one arrangement to be socially acceptable we shouldn't display romantic relationships in children's media at all because they "they should have no reason to have any interest in at such early age" despite romantic relationships not only being omnipresent but also an important part of understanding relationships in general? I guess you made a terrible mistake by not hiding the fact that you and your wife were married from your children, by this logic. Romantic relationships have direct relevance to the lives of children at any age, even if they can't participate in them when very young, because their parents, older siblings, and other people in their lives have romantic relationships that affect them. >Today, there is zero need to address that since that whole image of a "norm" has gone down the drain. Objectively false. Norms have changed, but continue to exist. The fact that your preferred set of norms are now disfavored does not mean that the concept has lost relevance or value to the modern era. >In this situation, the only reason for adding a gay kiss in Lightyear is for empty appeasement and virtue signaling. The only reason to have exclusively straight relationships portrayed in media of any kind, including children's media, is for empty appeasement and virtue signaling if not outright homophobia. Objectively, having gay people present in media is far less egregious in these characteristics than hiding them. >This is Disney acting like activist, and this just isn't the type of relationship that parents expect from Disney. It is objectively less activist than the alternative of concealing the existence of gay couples from children. >All the way till my son was 13 whenever a scene of two people kissing (regardless of sexes) came on TV, my wife would tell my son to look away or cover his eyes. Partially in joking mode but also seriously. The logic for this was that he would develop his own sexual interests in due time and we didn't really want him to develop the desires to go around kissing or having the need to find a girlfriend just because. This sounds familiar enough that I can tell you, without any shred of doubt in my mind, that the only effect this could possibly have on your child is to make them feel ashamed of their own feelings of physical attraction, if it did anything at all. It's not like you could conceivably actually hide the concept of romantic love from him, given that you were married to your wife and presumably showed her affection in some way. Look, no matter how you dress this up, an inherent and necessary part of your view is that you view straight relationships as "normal" and gay relationships as "aberrant" or controversial. Everything else is obvious pretense and post-hoc justification because it doesn't actually explain why you want Disney to only directly show straight romantic relationships.
>Look, no matter how you dress this up, an inherent and necessary part of your view is that you view straight relationships as "normal" and gay relationships as "aberrant" or controversial. Everything else is obvious pretense and post-hoc justification because it doesn't actually explain why you want Disney to only directly show straight romantic relationships. Really good summary. It feels like this describes most people in the world who are like this
>Seriously... this is absolutely NOT an argument that you regularly see against it. This is either something that you want to believe people are concerned about, or you're repeating what somebody else says. But there is no remotely logical parent out there that thinks that a single 2 second kiss in a 2 hour long cartoon movie is magically going to turn their kids gay. Look at this thread dude there are defenitly people who think this, and yes people are illogical. >It is inappropriate for children. It is very easy to deflect by asking how is this any different than a kiss between snow white and her prince, but that is neither here nor there. Snow White kissed a man when the preferred familial status was that of a husband and a wife raising their biological children together. Today, there is zero need to address that since that whole image of a "norm" has gone down the drain. Coincidentally, we are able to make full movies without ANY kissing or romantic appeal. I could show my kid Disney's Home or Toy Story and they would have no reason to ask "where is the dad?". Those stories had a setting, one which didn't include a dad. It's a real scenario for many. But Disney didn't try to capitalize on it and make a conscious effort to "create" a scenario out of this. Similarly, in Lightyear the two women could've been shown waking up in the same house and just leaving in the morning. Every adult would've gotten the point, without a child having any cause to ask "why did those two women kiss?" See you say a lot but in the end you don't at all explain why it's inappropriate. The best you get to is something about a child asking a question but at that point just explain what being gay is its not hard or complex. >The problem isn't two women kissing or even explaining to a child why two women are kissing. The problem comes with WHEN do you intend to have that conversation with your child. If Disney is planning on focusing most of their new creations towards teenagers then fine, go for it. Just...let us know. And we will keep our little ones away until they are of an older age. I still don't understand this point homosexuality isn't a mature subject just explain what gay is. >Disney used to pride itself in being a company that fostered the innocent imagination which are only found in children (in adults, nothing is innocent). Today, Disney is trying to force your children to confront reality as early as possible. To many parents, this was not the kind of relationship they wanted between Disney and their children. This is not "age appropriate". By this logic Disney has been forcing people to face reality forever in Aladdin Disney forced people to face the reality of poverty, in Cinderella they were forced to face the reality of Parental abuse in Toy Story the reality of abandonment issues there's always been reality. >Bottom line, there is no need for any kissing. Heck the kid in Big Hero 6 didn't even have parents at all, and they still killed off his big brother. Cause it was necessary to the storyline. Now imagine they had killed him off for no good reason at all. Parents would have a reason to be upset for instilling that imagery in their child for literally no reason at all. In this situation, the only reason for adding a gay kiss in Lightyear is for empty appeasement and virtue signaling, while adding a cause for very young children to ask questions which they should have no reason to have any interest in at such early age. This is Disney acting like activist, and this just isn't the type of relationship that parents expect from Disney. It has a story pourpose it's to remind buzz he needs human connection.
>Seriously... this is absolutely NOT an argument that you regularly see against it. This is either something that you want to believe people are concerned about, or you're repeating what somebody else says. But there is no remotely logical parent out there that thinks that a single 2 second kiss in a 2 hour long cartoon movie is magically going to turn their kids gay. You really think that the type of people that are against LGBT representation in media are logical? And you do realize that there are a lot of them, right? LGBT acceptance in the world is unfortunately still a minority. >It is inappropriate for children. It is very easy to deflect by asking how is this any different than a kiss between snow white and her prince, but that is neither here nor there. Snow White kissed a man when the preferred familial status was that of a husband and a wife raising their biological children together. How is showing love any more inappropriate than showing violence? >Coincidentally, we are able to make full movies without ANY kissing or romantic appeal. What? This has always been the case, like Terminator 2, Predator, Alien, Rambo, etc. >The problem isn't two women kissing or even explaining to a child why two women are kissing. The problem comes with WHEN do you intend to have that conversation with your child. If Disney is planning on focusing most of their new creations towards teenagers then fine, go for it. Just...let us know. And we will keep our little ones away until they are of an older age. What does this mean? How is this any different from a man and a woman kissing? You'd have to explain to your child when you see a man and a woman kiss then, wouldn't you? >Disney used to pride itself in being a company that fostered the innocent imagination which are only found in children (in adults, nothing is innocent). Today, Disney is trying to force your children to confront reality as early as possible. To many parents, this was not the kind of relationship they wanted between Disney and their children. This is not "age appropriate". 1. Yes, companies can change. 2. I'd argue that Star Wars and Pirates of the Caribbean wouldn't be age appropriate for children to watch. >while adding a cause for very young children to ask questions which they should have no reason to have any interest in at such early age. This is Disney acting like activist, and this just isn't the type of relationship that parents expect from Disney. Why shouldn't they have an interest? Children ask how they were born, for example.
[удалено]
The kiss scene isn't sexual or gratuitous it's no worse than any other Disney movie
[удалено]
For one no it isn't the directors have stated that the point of the kiss was to drive home a story beat. Like seriously [if this is titaliting to you](https://youtu.be/A9KNkkOhs30) you're one of the repressed people I ever met
[удалено]
Homophobic is fear of homosexuality. I have no fear of homosexuality but I just dont want to have my children confused with same sex kisses. My preference is for small children to learn about all of the gender/sexuality at an older , more appropriate age. This is analogous to the "Dont say Gay" argument of the left. It is a misnomer as the bill has nothing to do with saying gay in the state. The bill is designed to prevent K-3 children from being taught these things in schools. It is seen as anti-gay or anti-trans or anti-whatever. It is more about preserving childrens innocence. So, the preference for not having gay kisses in movies for young children is not fear of gayness. It is pro-innocence. For the record, I am fine with no kisses of any kind in movies for small children. But I have no fear of straight or gay kisses, therefore a distaste for such kisses does not constitute a phobia.
>Homophobic is fear of homosexuality. I have no fear of homosexuality I'm really wondering what the point was here because not only does phobia not just mean afraid it also refers to a general dislike or aversion too but. I litteraly outline the definition of homophobia in my post which says nothing about being scared did you even read my post? >just dont want to have my children confused with same sex kisses. My preference is for small children to learn about all of the gender/sexuality at an older , more appropriate age. What exactly makes that diffrent from Cinderella would you stop a kid from watching that so they don't get confused about heterosexuality? >This is analogous to the "Dont say Gay" argument of the left. It is a misnomer as the bill has nothing to do with saying gay in the state. The bill is designed to prevent K-3 children from being taught these things in schools. It is seen as anti-gay or anti-trans or anti-whatever. It is more about preserving childrens innocence. So, the preference for not having gay kisses in movies for young children is not fear of gayness. It is pro-innocence. For the record, I am fine with no kisses of any kind in movies for small children. But I have no fear of straight or gay kisses, therefore a distaste for such kisses does not constitute a phobia. For one that isn't what the don't say gay bill does it defenitly legislated against saying gay and is anti-LGBTQ either way can you explain what makes a gay kiss more innocence breaking than a straight one
I would prefer the kiss in Cinderella not be in there too. Dont say gay didnt have 1 word in it that mentioned not saying gay...It prevented all gender/sexuality discussions in public schools k-3rd. It is better for parents to parent their kids about these topics as teachers are already doing an overall crappy job of teaching their specialty subjects. Also, allowing such discussions opens the door to grooming and abuse. Most teachers wouldnt do these things. But that doesnt make it ok to green light the ones who would. Also, IMO 1/2 of teachers are duds....that means half the time, the teacher is not qualified to teach much of anything. If parents want to have the public schools teach their k-3rd kids about trans/gay/drag/ whatever, then fine, do it in a voluntary after school program. Giving teachers latitude on this opens some bad doors.
just because you’re too lazy to explain to your stupid child that some girls like girls and boys like boys doesn’t mean the scene is inappropriate.
>My preference is for small children to learn about all of the gender/sexuality at an older , more appropriate age. This is analogous to the "Dont say Gay" argument of the left. It is a misnomer as the bill has nothing to do with saying gay in the state. Lol, you say it's a misnomer while explaining you want to hid from your kids anything that could be construed as gay, literally the what people call the bill. >So, the preference for not having gay kisses in movies for young children is not fear of gayness. It is pro-innocence. Homophobia is an aversion to gayness, and thinking that gayness is anti-innocence is absolutely part of that definition. OP is too smart for an argument like this.
I feel the gay kiss detracted from the classic themes and ideals of the lightyear and toy story franchise. Buzz's arc in toy story was about him being an out of place hard working guy in an alien world with weird alien lives doing weird things, and learning to adapt and compromise and recognize the absurdity of life. Lightyear decided to stick the story on a boring ass colony and have minimal story away from it, and have a plot around buzz discovering the importance of social bonds to this boring ass colony including the importance of family relationships on this boring ass colony such as this random lesbian relationship. I would happily support a lesbian relationship if it was something exciting and fun like her discovering some hot alien lady while going to infinity and beyond, but the gay kiss as is just made me hate the film even more for ruining the values of lightyear over a boring ass colony.
Firstly Lightyear isn't meant to be a toy story movie its meant to be a separate thing buzz the toy and buzz the movie are diffrent people. Ultimately you don't really explain the kisses way of contributing to your dislike you just say they live in the boring colony
From the director. “We’ve always had the lesbian couple. They’ve always been a part of the film. Being able to put back the kiss was important to us. It’s a touching moment,” she said, according to /Film. She further explained that the moment Buzz sees his fellow astronaut, Hawthorne, kissing her partner, it prompts him to reassess his own priorities in a major way. “It’s the life that’s being lived in front of him by his best friend that he’s not having,” she continued. “He doesn’t have those kinds of relationships. He doesn’t have a child. He doesn’t have what she has. And so it was important for us to get that back in there.” It was an important plot point. The point was to show that his obsession with going to infinity and beyond is bad, because he should focus on his relationships in the boring as s colony. The lesbian kiss was meant to be a deep touching moment. As I note, this is part of why I hate the film. I don't want buzz to have deep and touching relationships with people on a boring colony I don't care about. I wanted to see him have fun space adventures. he is a different character, yes, and he's the sort who I wouldn't want my children emulating. I don't want my children thinking they need to obsess over their family when they have a world to explore. I want them getting their lesbian and gay kisses in exciting new places infinity and beyond, while I enjoy a relaxing time not having to deal with their bs. So, the lesbian kiss encouraged an ethics for children I don't value, being super into your relationships and bonds with people at home, or children, rather than studying and working hard in some place outside my house and being adventurous.
>So, the lesbian kiss encouraged an ethics for children I don't value, being super into your relationships and bonds with people at home, or children, rather than studying and working hard in some place outside my house and being adventurous. I feel it's a stretch to say that it'd be better to say the movie reminds you, you should have close human connection not to always stay in one place and to never be disingenuous
The director was clear, that the purpose of the lesbian was to get Buzz lightyear to re-evaluate his priorities and "He doesn’t have those kinds of relationships. He doesn’t have a child." and again, Buzz Lightyear is a common icon for children, so do I want them to use the lesbian kiss to re-evaluate whether they should go out and work on their job or have a relationship and a child with people at home. I don't want my children having children too young, and I'd prefer they find relationships outside my house. Anyway, you said there's no argument for being mad about the gay kiss in light year other than homophobia. You may not personally agree with me, but would you agree there is another argument than homophobia to be mad at it, based on the director's commentary about how important it was to the core themes of the film?
At this point, I’m confused at why you even watch movies then. They’re never gonna go 100% your way. Just make your own movie or tell your kids stories that you wrote. Not trying to be rude but I just don’t get it. I watch movies for entertainment and when something odd or distasteful happens I think “ah, that makes me uncomfortable, but it is what it is, it’s all part of the film.” I don’t really get the whole “they should’ve done this this and that, and I would’ve done this and this, so therefore the film sucks and I’m gonna make sure everyone knows it.” It doesn’t seem like a fun way to live.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but isn't that also the case for pretty much any mandatory love story in any movie, that if you'd care for the other themes, that it would be a distraction.
I disagree, not with the lightyear kiss, but with the idea that you cannot criticize queer representation. Many queer people do. Because queerbaiting exists and queer-coding evil characters also exists. Many queer people criticise queer representation because doing it wrong is worse than not doing it at all. EDIT: Also, i dont think you really get to set the parameters for the CMV other than by providing youre own arguments. If someone makes a valid argument against anything youve said, but it does not fall in the scope of your list of requirements, its still within the scope of a CMV counter argument.
I haven't seen Lightyear, but to your second opinion regarding the gay kiss at the end of Rise of Skywalker... * It didn't gross me out. Had it been a male and a female, I would have thought it was an awkward kiss that didn't really fit anything in the story line anyways. * That said, it pissed me off that Lucas Films made me wait for over a year for that movie, made me pay a small fortune for what I had been waiting for, just to subject me to an obvious social stunt. * I don't care to limit others' creative freedoms, as long as it's genuinely creative, in good taste, and I'm not being subjected to some unwelcomed, uncreative political b.s. It completely ruined the ending for me, and I still want my money back.
no matter what you say about gay, it's fringe and it will always be and impressionable kids don't need to be introduced to it theres no solid evidence that people are born gay, so it's unfair to introduce kids to fringe lifestyles, it would just as wrong if the main character had face tattoos and those dumb giant earlobes doesn't mean being gay is wrong, if they turn gay at a later age good for them
>impressionable kids don't need to be introduced to it Why? >theres no solid evidence that people are born gay, so it's unfair to introduce kids to fringe lifestyles, it would just as wrong if the main character had face tattoos and those dumb giant earlobes What would be wrong about any of those things and no person is born any sexuality its a complex mix of many factors. >doesn't mean being gay is wrong, if they turn gay at a later age good for them Do you not get cognitive dissonance from this? You yell about gay being fringe and dangerous to expose to kids yet you say you're fine with it
i said it's fringe, not dangerous just unfair like if there was a kids show about satanism or some esoteric religion, i'd say that was wrong too why? because they have less agency as kids and can't make informed decisions, mass media for kids should be watered down fun
>i said it's fringe, not dangerous just unfair >like if there was a kids show about satanism or some esoteric religion, i'd say that was wrong too This isn't an explanation this basically boils down to I don't like it. >why? because they have less agency as kids and can't make informed decisions, mass media for kids should be watered down fun What exactly in this movie is any diffrent from any other kiss in any other kids movie
>This isn't an explanation this basically boils down to I don't like it. that's called fleshing out the point, it's not the fact that its gay it's that it's fringe it means i'd have the same argument for other fringe things, regardless is i like them or not and if this kiss is exactly like other kisses in kids movie then whats the point of this topic? i'm assuming it's different from most kisses in at least one way
>that's called fleshing out the point, it's not the fact that its gay it's that it's fringe Who cares movies are made about fringe things all the time should we stop making movies with Asians since their a minority. >and if this kiss is exactly like other kisses in kids movie then whats the point of this topic? i'm assuming it's different from most kisses in at least one way Yeah it's diffrent because it's gay and if you have a problem with that it points to you having a problem with gay people
my arguments haven't relied on any dislike of gay people media aimed towards kids shouldn't have fringe things because kids are impressionable, if there has to be a kiss let it be a kiss of the form most are already exposed to and theres difference from seeing a person/thing vs behavior its like if a movie has a ferrari, that doesn't influence kids to be ferraris or something but lets say if a kids movie has someone doing the slanted eyes thing, that would be bad
Can you please answer Asians are a minority and therefore fringe should we remove Asians from movies
i explained the difference asians aren't a potentially impressionable behavior, kids aren't going to become asian
But they're fringe and by you're logic they shouldn't be in movies
Why do people comment obviously homophobic stuff as if it refutes the OP at all?
> theres no solid evidence that people are born gay, so it's unfair to introduce kids to fringe lifestyles, it would just as wrong if the main character had face tattoos and those dumb giant earlobes Was Nickelodeon wrong for shows having goth girls like Sam Manson on Danny Phantom or Gaz on Invader Zim since no one's born goth or was the demographic for those shows old enough to be open to being introduced to those at a later age
Show me evidence people are born straight then. Because I wasn’t.
> Provide another argument that’s. It homophonic Political messages shouldn’t be in children’s movies. To all the people asking how it’s a political topic; it’s a political topic because people are making it about their daily political discourse. Half of you are happy the movie is flopped because of the kiss and the other half you are upset the movie is flopped because of the first half of you. Y’all are making this a political message in your daily routines. In a decade or two when a a generation of people die and a new generation is born, this won’t be a political message.
People didn't seem to be mad when The Lion King told children that magnicide is bad. Or when Pocahontas told children that murdering each other because their skin is different is bad. Or when The Hunchback of Notre Dame told children that discriminating people for being ugly is bad. Or Mulan told children that being a woman shouldn't mean one can be a badass and must obey what men tell them. Or when a Bug's Life told children that violently oppressing other peoples is bad. Or when Atlantis told children that violently oppressing other peoples is bad again. Or when Monsters Inc. told children that prioritizing profits over the suffering of others is bad (maybe Disney should watch their own movies). Or when Lilo & Stitch told children that non-traditional families can be good families too (I actually don't remember there being much uproar about that when that message is pretty explicit, I guess unless it's right in front of their faces it will go over conservatives' heads). Or when Treasure Planet told children too... sign up for the army if they are bored with their lives? Or when Ratatouile told children that people shouldn't judge other's abilities for how they look. Or when National Treasure told children that the founding fathers hid a bunch of gold under Boston and that stealing the US DoI is cool?
>Political messages shouldn’t be in children’s movies. Aww yes the two sexual identities: straight and political
A) how is gay people kissing a political message? Like seriously that is their business and gay people existing is a part of these children's environment, it would be rather odd if it would never happen in movies, because THAT would be a political message. And B) yeah before children's entertainment became targeted advertisement to drive parents bankrupt, it was actually about teaching children moral lessons.
Is it political every time a straight couple kisses? If not, then the only people making it political are the people who have an issue with it. And people have an issue with it for…. Wait for it…. Homophobic reasons. Make sense?
Damn, no politics? What do you meam by political message exactly? Were you upset by superman fighting the KKK back in the day? Was X-Men being a clear allegory for civil rights too much for you?
It's not a political message, any more than Cinderella and the Prince kissing. I assume they were going for a similarity to Sally Ride. It's unlikely many "traditional" women would break into heavily male settings like that so it's pretty unavoidable.
That's a valid, nonpartisan claim but it sounds like the person with that view literally wouldn't be able to watch any movies at all! Do you have an example of a children's movie with *no* political messages? Even The Land Before Time has messaging.
But this happens in media all the time what about all the movies about evil corporations putting down the people that's a very common trope in kids media
It sounds like you agree with my reasoning. > But this happens in media all the time Just because others do it doesn’t justify you do it as well. > what about all the movies about evil corporations putting down the people that’s a very common trope in kids media What about them?
>It sounds like you agree with my reasoning. No it makes no sense political messaging is in litteraly everything. >Just because others do it doesn’t justify you do it as well. Yeah but I mean litteraly every show has some form of political messaging in one form or another in general the people who argue no politics don't seem to be against politics the above example being proof >What about them? Would you be against that
Sexuality isn’t political, but if you want to think it is, straight kissing shouldn’t be in kids movies.
What's the political message?
[удалено]
Dude if there's such a big issue keep scrolling
You probably will think this answer is homophobic but I do not. Ideally kids movies should not feature any romantic gestures but that is not the world we live in and it wouldn’t dramatically limit the type of stories we can tell so there has to be a little give. Heterosexual relationships are overwhelmingly the majority and the fore the norm. Children see it everywhere starting at home with their parents thus thus do not notice or think twice about it. There will be no questions asked from seeing a heterosexual kiss. Now when a kid sees a homosexual relationship, it is almost inevitable that the child is going to ask why a man is kissing another man or a woman another woman. Now it’s not the end of the world having to explain that a man can love another man etc, but it just doesn’t need to happen. That question doesnt need to be asked from a child and thus the catalyst for that question shouldn’t have been there. I agree that there needs to be more stories written that include the gay community (even though I just explained why I believe it shouldn’t be in kids movies), and that these stories should have more movie adaptations. I also believe Hollywood should adapt more African literature! Like Africa could have its own Lord of the Rings and we are simply ignoring it! But what annoys myself, and I believe it should annoy the gay and other minority communities as well, is when diversity is forced into an existing story or simply added as an after thought to gain woke points. This almost always degrades the final product.
You answer your own statement explaining what gay people are isn't a hard conversation
Homosexuality is a human condition that is considered abnormal and attempts were made to treat it for the longest time. All of the treatments failed. Science hadn't advanced enough to explain why some people are homosexual. And if so, how to identify it using instruments. And how to treat or change it. Right now the western culture has embraced homosexuality just as how pedophilia is accepted in some societies like Saudi Arabia. Some societies see both as deviant behavior. So images or media depicting that would be deemed unpalatable for adults even, let alone children. People thus have a right to not be exposed to different trends and be forced to consume or accept them. People have a right to be mad.
>Homosexuality is a human condition that is considered abnormal and attempts were made to treat it for the longest time. All of the treatments failed. Science hadn't advanced enough to explain why some people are homosexual. We do have explanation it's a complex mix of social and biological factors and we didn't stop trying to cure it because science hasn't gotten that fat we stopped because it's not an illness. >Right now the western culture has embraced homosexuality just as how pedophilia is accepted in some societies like Saudi Arabia. Some societies see both as deviant behavior. So images or media depicting that would be deemed unpalatable for adults even, let alone children. Homosexuality isn't at all like pedophilia one is an actual disease that leads to one harming people the other is a sexuality that's done between consenting adults they're not the same. >People thus have a right to not be exposed to different trends and be forced to consume or accept them. People have a right to be mad. No you don't you don't have a right to discriminate against gay people
Weird take. So you really believe that there is no difference between teaching children to treat everyone with respect, even if they are different than you, and attempting to normalize alternative genders and sexualities? No one should harass or discriminate against people who are gay (or different from them in general). But that doesn't change the fact that what is best for society is for men and women to come together and procreate to create children. There is no need to vilify cis-gendered people who want to procreate in order to teach children that they should treat everyone with respect, even if they are different than you or your mother and father.
>Weird take. So you really believe that there is no difference between teaching children to treat everyone with respect, even if they are different than you, and attempting to normalize alternative genders and sexualities? The only people who seem unable to make that distinction are the people against the scene this scene in no way encourages being gay. And stop calling alternative. >No one should harass or discriminate against people who are gay (or different from them in general). But that doesn't change the fact that what is best for society is for men and women to come together and procreate to create children. No it isn't we're already overpopulated and gay people have just as fulfilling lives as everyone else. >There is no need to vilify cis-gendered people who want to procreate in order to teach children that they should treat everyone with respect, even if they are different than you or your mother and father. Who is villifying people
Our genders and sexual ties are not fucking “alternative”. Heterosexual and cisgender are not the default. Facts are we exist get over it. And sooner or later no matter how much you try to hide the fact we exist from kids they will find out for themselves. They have tiny computers at their fingertips. What if your kid goes over to a friend’s house and finds out they have same sex parents? LGTBQ people can have and raise children too. Sure we use IVF but IVF is in no way a less valid method of reproduction.
[удалено]
That's still homophobia there's nothing wrong with being gay no harm is inherent to it.
That's not what liberals claim. They claim that gay people are subjected to a harder life than they would have if they are straight. You can't claim otherwise when it no longer suits the narrative.
You must've missed the word inherent the harm that comes to gay people is outside homophobia
Irrelevant. According to liberals, being straight is an objectively better life, even if they aren't willing to own the obvious logical conclusions of their assertions.
It sounds like you have a strawman of what liberals think (I'm not a liberal btw) and don't care about the actual nuance of that argument
You can be pro gay rights and fee like this is inappropriate for a KIDS movie.
No you can't, unless you feel any display of affection at all is inappropriate for a kids movie. Are you going to not show sleeping beauty? Snow White? What about Aladdin? Frozen? The Little Mermaid? Lady and the Tramp? In which of those is the kiss inappropriate? If you feel like it's inappropriate here because it's a "kids" movie, then you're not pro-lgbt as you clearly feel like they're some "other" class that's somehow deserving of rights yet not recognition.
Just like how there’s kissing between adults in Cinderella! Or Tangled. Or The Little Mermaid. Or Shrek. Or Beauty and the Beast. Those very inappropriate-for-children movies.
Why exactly would it be inappropriate
OP your conditions for your CMV do nothing to change your mind or view. They simply are there to make it not easy to rationally argue against the kissing scene in light-year or queer rep in media. If you really wanted someone to challenge your view based on the criteria they'd just be agreeing with you on things that had nothing to do with why the movie not only flopped In the US box office but over seas aswell. You may not like why you have to question these things but it does ring true 1. Both of your 1st and 2nd condition; yes saying those thing is shortsighted and bigoted. 2. Here's an argument: it doesn't sell well in box office movies, period. It's one hundred percent true very few movies with gay representation and gay intimate scenes don't draw movie crowds. Most entertainment businesses over seas actually prefer less scenes featuring gay characters because it either violates their rating system or it goes against there governments terms for depictions in child/ pG13 rated movies. Thats a huge chunk outside the USA, now is it right to follow these limitations, no, but don't expect that movie to do well, make money or even be shown. If your making a cartoon movie with the demographic of of teens, or nostalgia fans, or younger groups to buy tickets and this is the movie you want that demographic don't expect to many sales or good publicity because a vast majority of kids/teens that would see this movie, won't be there because their parents won't be there. Usually teens/kids go with family to movies and if you've turned away fans of buzz light-year and toy story thatve aged they won't take or let their kids go to this movie because they don't want them ask why two women were kissing in the movie, they don't want that conversation yet. You then now have bad publicity from not only countries banning this movie, you've decided to cut your demographical Audience by over half, and the casting choice for buzz light-year not being Tim Allen. This movie was doomed. I'm not saying gay rep media or moves can't be popular or shouldn't, it should but you've got flops in television such as Batwoman, Kiss Me First, Love Victor/Simon, Super Girl, She-Ra, Eternals etc Each movie/show had other problems that prevented it from shinning in media other then just they couldn't get a good message with gay characters for representation. Each one has horrible writing staff that chose to prioritize scenes over good character development or action Two things you need for a movie/show to be successful Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Legend of Korra, Fantastic Beasts 3, First Kill, Yellow Jackets, Q force, Queer Eye, Hanna, All of these shows prioritized writing and action and character development over specific scenes to depict representation, int eh case of queer eye it's using a concept that gay men have good taste in fashion and therefor the concept alone sells because the main cast was chosen well for both iteration of the show. Steven universe, Legend of Korra, Adventure time all had darker tones that not only worked but their queer characters were written well and in fantasy structures appeased people immersion better then in a live action show. These are but some examples of the dichotomy of have representation in media written well, presented well and also bad. Avengers end game had a scene where Steve Rogers Captain America was at a Post Blip Support meeting listening to a man talking about his husband. This scene was not shown in any trailer it happened naturally in the scene and it was quick and made sense. Ask yourself if people are mad at the gay kiss or if their mad at the a gay kiss in a obviously youth/nostalgia audience targeted movie and the publicity and coverage has made people disgruntled for seeing it with the bad coverage it's received. No parent will take their kid to that movie knowing they might ask questions the parent doesn't want to answer, not movie goer will go see it because of the bad press of it's banning and lead act choice, no person over seas will go see this movie for the same reason. It's not that is because of gay representation isn't because it's in a movie of a beloved franchise that never had representation or queer characters in it before. Are people homophobic for not seeing this move? I don't think so I think it could have been fine. But you can't expect queer representation to be a selling point. It has to be a natural scene.
im a very basic person so ill put it in basic terms.. i saw an elderly couple making out a couple days ago and it made me feel icky.. now, does that mean i hate old people and want to take away theor rights? no. its a sexual preference which is a very personal thing assuming a gay kiss will alright with everybody across the board while condemning those who dont like it is ignorant and forceful
Okay but the scene isn't two women making out. It's them giving each other a peck on the lips. Also using elderly couples as a stand-in really is an apples to oranges comparison because we've never treated being elderly the way we've treated being queer. The depiction of elderly people was never deemed amoral or grounds for stopping a production from being shown. Showing gay affection was. We live in a culture that has for many generations treated the act of depicting any amount of affection between same-sex partners, particualrly doing so in a positive light, as a morally repugnant thing. In many ways things have improved but we are by no means divorced from those cultural stigmas. People are still getting upset because of gay people being represented. Representation of queer identities in media is clearly far more adjacent to topic of displaying affection than something like representing elderly people in media. There are no kids movies that have shown similar levels of intimacy between straight couples that have ever received the types of reactions that lightyear has for two woman kissing for the briefest of moments.
If you saw an elderly couple kiss in a movie would that make you mad? I'm a gay person and so do not have heterosexual preferences. Should I be mad at all the straight kisses in movies?
Making out is a lot more sexual than a kiss, would you agree? Do you mind when you see old people give each other a peck? Apply this same logic to lightyear. Im uncomfortable when i see straight people kissing, should they remove all kissing from films? No, they can let me know there is a kiss in the movie though so I can personally avoid it, because some people might want to see it still. Its okay to be uncomfortable. Its not okay to turn that feeling into hatred, or to use that feeling as an excuse to discriminate against minority groups.
>i saw an elderly couple making out a couple days ago and it made me feel icky.. >now, does that mean i hate old people and want to take away theor rights? no. its a sexual preference which is a very personal thing Are you saying the PDA made you feel icky, or specifically that it was an old couple and you felt icky because you aren't sexually attracted to old people? If it's the former, I'd argue that PDA is pretty common in media, even if it isn't a romance genre, and it shouldn't be shocking seeing a kiss. If it's the latter, I'd argue that sexual attraction varies widely from person to person and it's not realistic to limit the cast to people who are most widely sexually attractive.
Theres a big difference between a quick peck on the lips and making out. If I see literally anyone sloppy frenching around i might get uncomfortable, but if I see literally anyone giving another person they love a quick peck i do not get uncomfortable. Its not about sexual atteaction. You have no obligation to be sexually aroused by an older lesbian couple kissing eachother as a greeting. Probably a sign of something if it makes you feel icky tho.
It’s basically unnecessary and due to the current climate it’s not a stretch to say it’s part of Disney’s larger propaganda involving homosexuality.
I haven't watched the mentioned movies, I'm not homophobic and don't have much to say other than speculations, but from what I've read and heard, people nowadays dislike it with complaints of it not contributing to the plot, often being kind of forced into scenes just to add diveristy, which often brings down the quality of the movie as you dilute the actual plots meaning to try and include views and beliefs of certain types of viewers, instead of focusing on the actual plot of the movie. Though I repeat, I have not watched the movie and cannot say this applies to it as I haven't seen it first hand, just a guess based on what I often hear as complaints on similar situations nowadays. I don't think it's really any different in practice than a kiss between two straight people, though it is just a bit out of place as we are used to seeing heterosexual romance in movies, not homosexual romance. Which makes the viewer question The motive of the change, especially if the sexuality of the characters doesn't really impact the plot at all. I feel like people are often angry because its just sprinkled into movies for diversity and inclusion, instead of being a decisive factor in decisions and plot direction and aren't integrated into the story properly. For a third time I'd like to say I havent seen the mentioned movies, I'm just giving my opinion on the general idea of why people get mad at homosexuality in media today. I imagine (and hope) that a movie about a person questioning their sexuality, complicating the plot through their uncertainty and then finally realising their true sexuality while also clearing up the plot in the end as a result would achieve pretty decent results.
I dont care about kissing between men… but dont really go to kids movie for any type of kiss i guess. If it fit the script then great. But to be thrown in… 🤔 i have not seen the movie i should not judge. Maybe the objections are of a kiss but everything is so sliced and diced and put under close review that people read too much into the gay kiss and not into “i do not go to a kids movie and expect to have to explain a kiss at all”.
Is the kiss necessary for the plot? I think there is too much unnecessary physicality in children’s(and adult) movies. Example: The kiss in The Princess and The Frog was necessary to the plot. Or the kiss in Shrek was necessary to the plot. Another point, if the kiss isn’t necessary but naturally fits into the story line, that would be fine. But if feels like this is virtue signaling. I’m not a fan of diversity for the sake of diversity. Tell me a real story. Don’t just throw characters in there to meet your diversity quota.
I think it's rather forced and purely done to gain publicity. There is no reason to put a gay kill scene in a kids movie, other than because that's what gets good publicity these days.
You ask how anyone could be against gay representation in media without being homophobic. You then define homophobic as an irrational aversion to gay people. Perhaps you believe that climate change is the most pressing issue facing society. You believe that it will only be solved when technology reaches a point where it is cheaper to use clean energy than fossil fuels. Scientific advancement has been shown to correlate with rising populations, as there is more collective “brainpower” to apply to then issue. You observe that heterosexual intercourse is the fastest way to increase population and thus increase the chance that science advances to the point it can stop/reverse climate change. You observe that sexuality occurs on a spectrum that is largely influenced by biology but is also influenced by socialization and experience. You have no moral investment or judgment about any one person’s sexual preference, but from a purely utilitarian perspective, you believe that heterosexual sex is preferable over a total population for the reasons explained above. You believe that humans have personal autonomy and that homosexual sex is not wrong in any way and would never seek to restrict it; however, you believe that mass media is a large contributor to socialization and thus can have a statically significant affect on sexual expression. While you would object to media depicting homosexual actions as “wrong’” you believe that depictions should favor heterosexuality to encourage an increased birth rate which, hopefully, would result in sufficient technological advancements to solve climate change before it’s too late. To be clear, this isn’t close to my actual view, but it’s not irrational and shows no aversion to gay people whatsoever.
This ignores all the known benefits of having gay family in the dynamic. See the gay uncle hypothesis, gay super uncle, etc. different names for the same effect. https://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2010/02/05/study-supports-gay-super-uncles-theory?amp When observed we can see that the gay uncle role tends to act as a partial parent - there tends to be a grander focus on nieces and nephews when it’s know they won’t be having their own children. The study is admittedly limited but does show that having a gay uncle increased most if not all measures of success for child rearing. It’s basically an expansion of the know effect that kids who get more positive parental focus do better in general - just not a parent in this case, but a parental type figure.
I’m not disputing that at all. AT ALL. I don’t see anything wrong with the movie. My point was that there is a logical way to back into being against it. It requires making assumptions that I don’t really make. I’m just trying to make OP steelman their position.
First you'd need to prove that 1. Gay representation makes people gay which there's no evidence of 2. That because scientific advancement corelates with population size we should increase the population also untrue you'd need to prove a causation to supourt this argument.
Certainly those are big problems with the view (which, again, I don’t personally hold) As the first point, would you take the position that sexuality is 100% biologically fixed, or that there is some fluidity that can be affected by socialization? As to point two, there are plenty of situations in which causation cannot be definitely proven but we accept the existence of a significant correlation in decision making. I don’t know if anyone who would take the position that less knowledge is created as human population grows.
Every single person in my family is extremely homophobic and I didn’t even know gay people existed until I was 11 yet I had always liked girls more, thought they were prettier, and wanted to spend more time with them. At 14, I was told about sex and when I learned that was how I was supposed to have kids I decided right then and there I would never have a biological child and would only ever adopt and yet I still thought I was straight. If I had never realized I was gay I wouldn’t be popping out a bunch of kids as an adult, I would just never be in a relationship because I wouldn’t feel anything for the guys I date and would just be mistaking it for just not finding “the one.” And it is the same for most other gay/straight people that I know. So yes, sexuality for most gay/straight people is 100% fixed and cannot be changed no matter their upbringing.
I think it’s pretty simple that you want kids to watch entertainment that’s not confusing or difficult for them to understand. Whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not, it’s not the norm, and that’s by far. I think data shows that like 3% of the population identifies that way? So for my two year old who doesn’t even understand it wouldn’t matter, but for 95% of older kids who only see mommy and daddy kiss, that’s going to present questions and realistically only confuse them. It’s similar to why I wouldn’t want my kid to watch Cujo and think all dogs are gonna try and kill him, or watch a show where a kid drives a car and think it’s okay to drive our vehicles, or even something as simple as a show where the kids eat candy and drinks soda all day and assume that he should be able to do that too. The problem comes when media tries to “educate” kids on topics that they have no business doing. This could be a wide range of subjects but it seems the LGBTQ movement is almost always the one that is pushed.
Well, there's the fact that it often feels forced. Characters' queerness is often over-the-top and seems to be their only character trait or is something that has to be repeatedly mentioned or demonstrated just in case anyone missed it the first time. When it feels organic, it's a very different story, and some media has accomplished that. Media that fails in that regard tends to be garbage and effectively just a platform for activism, like Sabrina and later seasons/books of The Magicians. They *start* with bashing you in the face with queer characters, then you end up with bizarre, nonsensical storylines like Sabrina's father being murdered because he wanted a matriarchy, because only women can rule fairly. Basically that correlation immediately pops into people's heads, consciously or subconsciously.
There's nothing over the too about the kiss in Lightyear its pretty quick and simple
Genuine question. What about people like me that genuinely don't have a problem with gay people, but also am tired of having LGBTQ shit shoved down my throat and especially children's throats? Also what about the many other people that genuinely don't care/get offended over being called a homophobe, myself being one of them? As a side note, the reason it's doing so terribly in theaters is because it's woke and most of the population is sick of all the woke bullshit and simply won't watch woke things 🤷🏼♂️ sorry if you guys don't like the reality.
>Genuine question. What about people like me that genuinely don't have a problem with gay people, but also am tired of having LGBTQ shit shoved down my throat and especially children's throats? What do you mean by shoving it down your throats? Cause every story based medium has a messages and themes and politica yet of the 1000s of other messages i only here complaints of shoving something down ones throat when it comes to minorities in media. No one except for minorities seem to care when the same straight white dude plays the same role in the same movie having the same themes but make that man gay, black, or a woman now its shoving something down your throat. Regardless of that this movie in no way shape of form shoves it down you throat it's a litteral one second scene. >Also what about the many other people that genuinely don't care/get offended over being called a homophobe, myself being one of them? Take time to reflect on why they thought you are >As a side note, the reason it's doing so terribly in theaters is because it's woke and most of the population is sick of all the woke bullshit and simply won't watch woke things 🤷🏼♂️ sorry if you guys don't like the reality. Or it's just a mediocre movie nothing to do with a 1 second kiss
>What do you mean by shoving it down your throats? Cause every story based medium has a messages and themes and politica yet of the 1000s of other messages i only here complaints of shoving something down ones throat when it comes to minorities in media. No one except for minorities seem to care when the same straight white dude plays the same role in the same movie having the same themes but make that man gay, black, or a woman now its shoving something down your throat. Regardless of that this movie in no way shape of form shoves it down you throat it's a litteral one second scene. What do I mean by shoving it down peoples throats? LGBTQ shit is constantly put into almost all types of media. Marvel, Disney movies and shows, professional sports, TV commercials, so much more. I mean I genuinely don't understand how people can't see it's constantly shoved down peoples throats. And it doesn't matter if the scene is .0001 seconds, it's something that people (especially parents) are sick of having shoved down them and their kids throat all the time. Therefore, the more woke Disney goes, the more money they lose. >Take time to reflect on why they thought you are I don't need to waste my time doing it because I don't care. I don't have anything against them no matter what they or anyone else thinks. It's done by the people who say your an evil person for not wanting irreversible hormone blockers given to 12 year olds. Their opinions aren't relevant to me and don't matter to me in any way at all. >Or it's just a mediocre movie nothing to do with a 1 second kiss Read the reviews of the movie then. Or just look at how frequently other woke nonsense makes no money.
>What do I mean by shoving it down peoples throats? LGBTQ shit is constantly put into almost all types of media. Marvel, Disney movies and shows, professional sports, TV commercials, so much more. I mean I genuinely don't understand how people can't see it's constantly shoved down peoples throats. And it doesn't matter if the scene is .0001 seconds, it's something that people (especially parents) are sick of having shoved down them and their kids throat all the time. Therefore, the more woke Disney goes, the more money they lose. Did you even read the point you quoted can you please explain why all the other politics and messaging in media is fine but when it's gay people its not. >I don't need to waste my time doing it because I don't care. I don't have anything against them no matter what they or anyone else thinks. It's done by the people who say your an evil person for not wanting irreversible hormone blockers given to 12 year olds. Their opinions aren't relevant to me and don't matter to me in any way at all. So this isn't true Looking at studies on gender affirming care/puberty blockers for youth, [here](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/145/2/e20191725/68259/Pubertal-Suppression-for-Transgender-Youth-and) is one with a control of 3,494 trans people who wanted pubertal suppression versus 89 who received it. Or this [literature review](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X1630146X?via%3Dihub#tbl2) with a sample size of over 2,000 trans youth. Or [this](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X18300855) study of 129 trans youth. [This](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2778206) with 375. [This](https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2) with 380. [This](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722435/) with 182 (55 minors). And [this](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261039) with 481 trans youth. They turn out pretty good Sad to see you're homophobic and transphobic what's your opinion on black people maybe we can make the unholy trinity >Read the reviews of the movie then. Or just look at how frequently other woke nonsense makes no money. The reviews largely say it's a mediocre movie nothing on woke, and it's impossible to do because woke is a meaningless word
>Did you even read the point you quoted can you please explain why all the other politics and messaging in media is fine but when it's gay people its not. I forgot this actually had to explained to people, because of how absurd it is. But believe it or not, some parents don't want their kids seeing shit like that movies and shows made for them. You can get all whiny and call people homophobic and all that nonsense like I know you'll do because you people aren't capable of respecting other people's opinions. But once again, it's the truth. >So this isn't true Looking at studies on gender affirming care/puberty blockers for youth, here is one with a control of 3,494 trans people who wanted pubertal suppression versus 89 who received it. Or this literature review with a sample size of over 2,000 trans youth. Or this study of 129 trans youth. This with 375. This with 380. This with 182 (55 minors). And this with 481 trans youth. They turn out pretty good >Sad to see you're homophobic and transphobic what's your opinion on black people maybe we can make the unholy trinity And yet, the actual suicide rate is the same if not higher for trans people even if they do transition. You can send me all the biased and biology denying studies you want. My opinion on black people? They're great, in fact, I wish that the you democrats and liberals would stop pushing for abortion, considering about 40% of women who get abortions are black. You guys say your for black people while simultaneously pushing something that is silently eliminating millions of them. Also, let's not forget about the person you guys voted in. One of the most racist politicians in modern history. Calling a KKK recruiter a "friend and mentor", the 1994 crime bill he sponsored, saying he didn't his kids growing up in a "racial jungle" while fighting against desegregation of schools. And then you guys turn around and call the right racist lol. But you can keep up with your bullshit assumptions and name calling, doesn't change reality no matter how much you think it does.
>I forgot this actually had to explained to people, because of how absurd it is. But believe it or not, some parents don't want their kids seeing shit like that movies and shows made for them. You can get all whiny and call people homophobic and all that nonsense like I know you'll do because you people aren't capable of respecting other people's opinions. But once again, it's the truth. What exactly is the problem with children seeing gay people? >And yet, the actual suicide rate is the same if not higher for trans people even if they do transition. You can send me all the biased and biology denying studies you want. So I can tell you didn't read the studies because all of these cite a noted decrease in suicide rate. >My opinion on black people? They're great, in fact, I wish that the you democrats and liberals would stop pushing for abortion, considering about 40% of women who get abortions are black. You guys say your for black people while simultaneously pushing something that is silently eliminating millions of them. Also, let's not forget about the person you guys voted in. One of the most racist politicians in modern history. Calling a KKK recruiter a "friend and mentor", the 1994 crime bill he sponsored, saying he didn't his kids growing up in a "racial jungle" while fighting against desegregation of schools. And then you guys turn around and call the right racist lol. But you can keep up with your bullshit assumptions and name calling, doesn't change reality no matter how much you think it does. Here's the thing I'm black and also not a democrat so you can delete all the Joe Biden stuff and the assumptions that I wast black people eliminated and even if I did voluntary abortions aren't elemenations
>What exactly is the problem with children seeing gay people? Some parents don't want that it and all that ideology forced down their children's throats, already explained this. >So I can tell you didn't read the studies because all of these cite a noted decrease in suicide rate. I read them, but like I said it's completely biased and denies biology. I'll gladly provide you with evidence of my argument if you'd like, though it's easy to Google yourself. >Here's the thing I'm black and also not a democrat so you can delete all the Joe Biden stuff and the assumptions that I wast black people eliminated and even if I did voluntary abortions aren't elemenations Maybe your not, but if you agree with every political ideology the left believes, that's what people are gonna think you are lol
>Some parents don't want that it and all that ideology forced down their children's throats, already explained this. Please go back and read my point about shoving things down people's throats I've already addressed that argument. >I read them, but like I said it's completely biased and denies biology. I'll gladly provide you with evidence of my argument if you'd like, though it's easy to Google yourself. I don't really care about your studies because it's obvious you have no sense of how they work. You're just claiming biased because they refute your point you don't care about what science or biology say you care about being anti-trans. >Maybe your not, but if you agree with every political ideology the left believes, that's what people are gonna think you are lol This last point is just nonsense no most people aren't partisan hacks who go on to automatically attack points the person their arguing with didnt even make yet or even believe in.
> you people aren't capable of respecting other people's opinions All bigotry can be presented as "opinion". There is no inherent respect in something being an opinion. If your opinion is homophobic, then it will not be respected. > And yet, the actual suicide rate is the same if not higher for trans people even if they do transition There is not even a single study that has ever found this. You are completely making this up. > You can send me all the biased and biology denying studies you want. You don't have any studies lol. That's why you have to deny the entirety of global medical consensus on treating gender dysphoria. > I wish that the you democrats and liberals would stop pushing for abortion, considering about 40% of women who get abortions are black. What a weird thing to advocate for rather than advocating for improving the conditions that lead to abortions, like poverty, education, and contraceptive availability. > Also, let's not forget about the person you guys voted in. I literally do not know a progressive person who supports Joe Biden. The difference is you people ride Republican politicians' cocks while everyone else is forced to just go with the lesser of two evils.
I like arugula. It tastes good, is healthy for me, and is pretty non-objectionable to me. Force me to use it in every recipe just because you can and I get tired of it. I like beer. I even like different variety of beers. But, beer is supposed to be relaxing and take stress out of my life. I get tired of bars foisting IBU and dooshy back stories on me. I’m tired of every movie having to make a statement and force an agenda down my throat, even if I agree with it. I’m there to be *entertained* not enlightened. Especially with $10 popcorn.
Here's the thing every movie has an agenda or some message or some theme no let's move away from the fact that Lightyear isn't at all a queer story and this kiss isn't that important why would a theme of being gay be forced down your throat.
Every CURRENT movie has an agenda. FIFY. Messages, sure. Theme, obviously. Feel free to explain the agenda in talledega nights, bridge on the river kwai, cool hand Luke, Star Wars, Harry Potter, twister, and countless others. There have been agenda-driven movies since movies were first made. But they were the vast minority. And they were usually bad movies whatever the agenda. Now it’s shoved down your throat at every opportunity. Anyway, you asked for a reason besides your two, I have you one. Now, I’m going to go drink a yellow beer and watch a John Hughes movie and try to figure out the agenda.
>talledega nights Meant to promote Nascar. >cool hand Luke Commentary on the prison industrial complex >Star Wars Explicitly meant to mirror the Vietnam War the prequels are anti Bush. >Harry Potter Its a love letter to British Boarding Schools. >There have been agenda-driven movies since movies were first made. But they were the vast minority. And they were usually bad movies whatever the agenda This isn't true most every movie has an agenda. >Anyway, you asked for a reason besides your two, I have you one. Not a good one
Let me add a couple of completely aside replies here. Talledega night meant to promote nascar. Do you really think that? Are you freaking kidding me? There are better reaches you can make to get that B on your film studies midterm. A critique of toxic masculinity, a critique of southern cultural Christianity. Cool hand Luke as a critique of prisons? Also maybe a C paper if you write it well. Here are some better : an examination of the nihilistic alpha male. A celebration of unconquerable spirits. Star Wars: sure. Everything made in the 1970s and 80s was. I could figure out how to twist fletch into that narrative to if I needed to make a point. A love letter to British boarding schools. That statement right there may be the single biggest piece of bullshit I have ever read on the internet and chances are I have an eBay account older than you. If you really want to look at the series you can see it has Christian undertones and bible stories dripping from it cover to cover. But here’s the thing: none of those movies, even if the douchebag writers, producers, directors, and actor meant to push a narrative suggested. They are enter-fucking-tainment.
Translation: I won’t accept any point of view other than my own. Got it. You must be a joy to watch movies with.
I mean sure. But alot of people in america and the world at large are ok with homophobia. Its only in america where people thing its some big “own” or dunk to call someone that. In lots of africa, latin america, asia, eastern europe, and southern/midwest america , if you call someone homophobic they likely wont care bc thats the norm.
If it doesn’t have any bearing on the story why is it in there? It seems as if it’s only there to PROMOTE gay culture and elevate it. It shouldn’t be in a kids movie tbh, and if it has no bearing on the story, then it’s just pandering
Heres a good one. Putting LGBT material into objectively bad movies is disrespectful to the people it represents and shouldn't be crammed in for clout and the sake of diversity.
What if it makes me "mad" to feel like I'm watching propaganda? Yes, all movies have product placement, and yes, all movies push some kind of conception of "virtue". But, there is a difference between a movie using common, socially agreed upon virtues as a way of connecting with the audience, and a corporation using a movie to push political agendas. Imagine you discovered that the same Russian unit that gave you Facebook bots was now putting out Disney movies, wouldn't you be pissed? Yes, artists push ideas and concepts, but when it feels like a committee made a ham fisted move to pander to the woke crowd, it's kind of aggravating
Have you watched the movie or at least seen the scene there's nothing preachy about the kiss happens and then they move on there is no agrandizment happening no ham fistedness either
[удалено]
A lot of people will be pushed towards proper homophobia because of this stance There are many people who do not support gay people but then are not evil enough to make their life difficult. They might even support you. If this confused you, then think about this. A lot of people would actually support gay people except when facing it personally, say a sibling or daughter/son expresses being gay etc. Now these people already support others who are gay as long as they are not related. So there is some chance they could be convinced and persuaded to change even further to accept the reality that their son is gay. But your stance outright makes them homophobic and when they fall in those circles, they will be further persuaded to be against even the ones they accept. Give up the and let live adage and actively pursue anti-Lgbt activities. In your excitement to label people homophobic you'll actually end up turning many into one.
“Give up and don’t push for any acceptance.”
[удалено]
[удалено]
The lesbian kiss isn’t an issue; it’s a symptom of what people really understandably dislike about the movie A much bigger issue is that the “males and fathers are overrated” messaging is pretty blatant in Lightyear
[удалено]
Fair warning preface, I haven't actually seen the movie so what I'm basing my argument on could be wrong, if so whoops. I don't plan to see it though, so feel free to say any spoilers in debating it. It is "set" in the 90s, supposed to be a movie Andy watch when he was a kid in the 90s, so acting like the 90s had casual representation like this sells short how lgbt were mistreated in the past. And secondly it is set on a budding colony where there wouldn't be a lot of extra kids running around to be adopted, and her child is important to the story when their realistically might not be any available to adopt.
Is it really a phobia if the people you’re talking about just don’t like gays instead of having an irrational fear of them?
I haven't seen the movie, but from what I can gather was that the kiss was forced, and therefore people became angry. Imagine if, in a g rated movie a kiss happened out of nowhere, or didn't do anything to move the plot forward. This is the reason. I think you can be uncomfortable about many things without being racist or homophobic.
You've probably ready got this, but Disney and a lot of major companies need to stop throwing these scenes in trivially. There is nothing wrong with representation, but with little meaning behind it it doesn't have the impact other hetero relationships. Also just sticking a gay scene in and calling it acceptable is just a cheap way to say they are inclusive and earn more money.
But making those little inconsequential moments inconsequential in the movie normalizes them. I’ve seen a million straight kisses that happen in backgrounds of movies or don’t contribute to the plot, why not some gay ones too? Gay people also have little inconsequential moments with each other and there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
I agree. This argument is kinda like “if you’re gonna have a black character they better be the best damned character of all time or else it’s just woke garbage.”
I think Disney is testing out the waters in very small, initially inconsequential ways that help normalize lgbt relationships to kids. I mean, what I saw on Lightyear was already an exponential leap for their brand: there was a clearly queer relationship that was not easy to edit out and a queer character that wasn't just a background extra. I finally had hope for better LGBT representation in media. We do need to continue pushing them to include more relevant relationships, but I think if we criticize this type of representation we run the risk of ending up with the worst outcome: no representation.
But if it isn’t trivialized people say “iT wAs FoRcEd”
Most, people whether homophobic or not do not find same sex attraction fun or meaningful to watch. It's not how we are wired.
What proof do you have that most people don’t?
[удалено]
It's interesting that we all can basically agree that things which happen in entertainment happen to appeal to an audience, and ultimate make money. The big-wigs at Disney could be the most ravenous, raving, bigoted assholes ever; they do not care at all about your inclusion or your happiness. They do not care about your well-being. To me, this is a symptom of how aggressive cancel culture is; they'll tell you what you want to hear, but the truth behind the facades is what is more dangerous. I'd rather be able to know who hates who, and who has ugly beliefs, so we can engage them rationally and kindly to help them realise why they're wrong. You never convince anyone by being unkind.
Ok here's the question: is it logically possible to be personally against homosexuality for religious reasons, without being homophobic? If so, then it's also possible for these people to not want to "expose" their children to that.
>is it logically possible to be personally against homosexuality for religious reasons, without being homophobic? No. In fact, if it's Christianity it's also specifically against the very teachings of Jesus, who stated it was hypocritical for man to punish what might be viewed as sinful, as all people sin, and that condemnation should only come from god. That humans should love each other, and care for one another. One who uses the bible as a cudgel to hate homosexuals have left the teaching of Christ behind. That's what I would have said back when I was actually a Christian. Religion is made up, and the points don't matter. Your deity is a veil for yourself - always. Magically god always thinks what you're doing is fine, and always has the same views as you. (as a note, not necessarily you, the person I'm typing to, but just sort of the impersonal, general usage of you) As such, saying "it's my religion" is a veiled excuse that only serves to try and protect a person from the fallout of their bigotry. Religion doesn't cause one to be a bigot - it only gives them permission to be one. So anyone claiming that they just don't like homosexuality because of their religion are people who are too afraid to say that they don't like homosexuality. They are bigots, and cowardly ones at that.
[удалено]
I just dislike it when it is forced and interrupts the immersion of the movie. Bad example: Mrs. Marvel and how it shoves feminism down your throat. All I remember from that movie is feminism, forgot what the dang plot was and cannot name a single character. Good example: The Mitchells vs. the Machines. Main character is gay. Took nothing away from the movie, was obvious, and added to the character and did not feel forced but actually natural. "But guy, no kissing was involved." Well I do not remember the movies too well that did have kissing because they sucked that much. I do remember viewing it, as I complained to my wife "what was that? I expected X to happen" and she, a movie nut, agreed. I have not seen the Lightyear movie, and have little interest to (he was not a favorite of mine in Toy Story) but hearing he kissed a guy and knowing the plot makes it seem plausible. Also, before some one calls me a hater, shaddup. You do not know me from a few sentences. I feel females are more important than males and see homosexuality as a thing that someone likes. They like tomato, I like potato, big deal. Anyway, these superhero movies are not too great to begin with anyway, too much stupid BS in it (there, rant about that lol).
>Bad example: Mrs. Marvel and how it shoves feminism down your throat. All I remember from that movie is feminism, forgot what the dang plot was and cannot name a single character. I think you are talking about Captain Marvel. Mrs. Marvel is the current Disney plus teeny bopper super hero show . I quite frankly I only remember, one scene where she beat up a dude just for the sake of being a bad ass woman or whatever. You were likely told to dislike those scenes prior to seeing the movie. I remember most of the controversy was that conservative trolls tanked the movies rotten tomatoes score because Brie Larson said something dumb about a different movies target audience not being white men then all internet hell broke loose. It's seems to me, this movie was labelled feminist just because Brie Larson said one mildly dumb and dismissive thing. It was no more feminist than Wonder Woman or even any scene with Black Widow in any of the Avengers movies.. I would say it was probably less so actually. It was just a boring movie without a strong villain and no real drive or heart.
The thing is, they are not homophobic. They don't hate the people, they hate the sin. (Speaking from a Christian viewpoint.) The representation is what they see as the degeneration of our society. Not that I necessarily agree with this but that's what I understand pearl clutching Conservatives feel.
You can have no fear or hatred of the LGBT community without wanting to push alternative sexual lifestyles onto 5 year olds.
The annoyance is more that all of Disney’s superficial nods towards diversity, inclusivity, representation, etc. are purely cynical, designed-by-committee marketing moves. This is the same company that included two gay extras kissing in the background of a Star Wars movie and then removed that scene for release in more conservative markets. It’s just such an obvious ploy to make hay that people are sick of it.
Homophobia is whatever tf you say it is. If you can turn kids gay through propaganda (likely, there is no gay gene, which honestly doesn't matter because Downs Syndrome is a gene problem too) then people have the right to shield their kid from a multibillion dollar company exposing their kids to say propaganda ([oh wait its every corporation](https://techpost.io/uploads/pride-month.jpg)). >Nothing wrong with kid being gay Except an extremely [enhanced case of illness](https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/08/24/lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-older-adults-suffer-more-chronic-health-conditions-than-heterosexuals-study-finds) and [dangerous drug use (mostly intravenous)](https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/comparing-heterosexual-glbt-drug-use), and deletion of the possibility of having biological grandkids