Beauty and the beast boycott

[punisherthunder]

Are you claiming that everyone in the LGBT community is going to wind up with AIDS or with a drug habit?

That’s the kind of anti-gay rhetoric that just plays into the hands of those who would love to paint all Christians as gay-haters.

No. I claim that sexually suggestive scenarios not be frontloaded and marketed to children.

My aunt and uncle did nothing to intervene with my cousin. Instead of deflecting his behavior toward more masculine things, they treated his behavior as a lovable gimmick. He was extremely flamboyant even as a 9 year old. I remember a family gathering and I was 11, and I remember thinking that something was wrong with him. The way he acted and talked about kissing boys, it just didn’t seem right.

 

[Bonnie]

My aunt and uncle did nothing to intervene with my cousin. Instead of deflecting his behavior toward more masculine things, they treated his behavior as a lovable gimmick.

I think you have some wrong ideas about masculinity & homosexuality. My adult son is very masculine (extreme sports, weightlifting, etc.), but wears skirts. That’s as far as he’s gone in front of me, but considering his best friend, who is gay, I’m sure he’s gone further than than privately. And he was raised Catholic.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

No. I claim that sexually suggestive scenarios not be frontloaded and marketed to children.

I don’t think showing an apparently gay man dancing with both a woman and a man goes anything near a “sexually suggestive scenario”.

And as I pointed in another topic, if not for the enchanted servant/household item chaperones, the whole premise of B+B is itself a “sexually suggestive scenario”. Indeed, since Belle at first has no real choice in the matter of moving in with the Beast, it could even be said to normalize kidnapping and the Stockholm Syndrome. I even recall some feminist groups panning the original B+B for supposedly promoting abusive relationships.

My aunt and uncle did nothing to intervene with my cousin. Instead of deflecting his behavior toward more masculine things, they treated his behavior as a lovable gimmick. He was extremely flamboyant even as a 9 year old. I remember a family gathering and I was 11, and I remember thinking that something was wrong with him. The way he acted and talked about kissing boys, it just didn’t seem right.

And you think that if they DID interfere they could have stopped him from being gay? What kind of intervention would that be, beyond prayer? “Conversion therapy”? Even if they had somehow managed to make him “more masculine”, many “masculine” men are actually gay. You also seem to be assuming all gay people are “flamboyant” and fit the same “limp-wristed” stereotype LeFou does. Being effeminate and being gay are often linked, but one is not necessary for the other. And while gay men in the US have higher risks of both AIDS and drug addiction, not all gay men wind up where your cousin did.

 

[meltzerboy]

I saw the movie. The gay character is comic relief. There are hints throughout the movie that he has a crush on Gaston. He’s a joke as a character…hardly reflects positively on the gay community. He’s shown to be spineless and pathetic. His “gay crush” backfires on him… If I were a gay man I would be very offended by the portrayal.
Yes, as a Catholic I would prefer to not see homosexuality addressed in family movies period…but I think we have bigger fish to fry.

Perhaps, as you imply, it is the gay community that should be boycotting the movie! Be that as it may, I reiterate the whole affair is much ado about nothing.

BTW, those “bigger fish” you mention might be baked or broiled rather than fried. It’s healthier that way. (Think I should keep my day job?)

 

[twf]

Perhaps, as you imply, it is the gay community that should be boycotting the movie! Be that as it may, I reiterate the whole affair is much ado about nothing.

BTW, those “bigger fish” you mention might be baked or broiled rather than fried. It’s healthier that way. (Think I should keep my day job?)

Broiled with a hint of lemon, perhaps.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Most of these boycott movements are ridiculous, but this one seems even more ridiculous than usual.

Seriously.

Yesterday someone sneezed on the train and didn’t cover their mouth! Why didn’t the Pope condemn this?!

Seriously, expecting the pope to get involved in two seconds of gay innuendo/comic relief in a random movie indicates a serious lack of perspective

 

[Lion_IRC]

Whaaaatt? From all the fuss I expected something really in your face. This is it??

I find it hilarious that people are freaking out about this and not about the fact that the protagonist falls in love with an animal

Linking beastiality to the LGBTQI agenda is one bridge too far.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Are you claiming that everyone in the LGBT community is going to wind up with AIDS or with a drug habit?

That’s the kind of anti-gay rhetoric that just plays into the hands of those who would love to paint all Christians as gay-haters.

This is exactly the language the gay agenda uses to make people feel bad for no reason. He said nothing of the sort. Good points Punis, it’s a warning to what could happen living that lifestyle.

 

[punisherthunder]

I think you have some wrong ideas about masculinity & homosexuality. My adult son is very masculine (extreme sports, weightlifting, etc.), but wears skirts. That’s as far as he’s gone in front of me, but considering his best friend, who is gay, I’m sure he’s gone further than than privately. And he was raised Catholic.

My point is that my aunt and uncle “excused” his behavior. There was no line in the sand.

 

[Lion_IRC]

punisherthunder;14544467:

…I have a cousin who is LGBT. It started just like this when he was about 8 or 9 years old. His parents thought it was “cute” to say he had a boyfriend. Fast forward, he know has AIDS and has been arrested for degenerative drug use.

…That’s the kind of anti-gay rhetoric that just plays into the hands of those who would love to paint all Christians as gay-haters.

WUT? Gay haters???

That isn’t “anti-gay rhetoric”

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Good points Punis, it’s a warning to what could happen living that lifestyle.

Just to play devil’s advocate, there are plenty of people who end up in horrible situations despite having a straight “lifestyle” as well. And plenty of gay people who end up in stable relationships, working steady jobs, and without any legal issues or drug abuse.

 

[meltzerboy]

Just to play devil’s advocate, there are plenty of people who end up in horrible situations despite having a straight “lifestyle” as well. And plenty of gay people who end up in stable relationships, working steady jobs, and without any legal issues or drug abuse.

It is really too bad that things such as this, related to the gay lifestyle, still have to be pointed out to some people.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Just to play devil’s advocate, there are plenty of people who end up in horrible situations despite having a straight “lifestyle” as well. And plenty of gay people who end up in stable relationships, working steady jobs, and without any legal issues or drug abuse.

Listen to Servant of God Father John Hardons series on homosexuality, very good. He talks about how most people practicing same sex acts are living a lifestyle of same sex acts with many others and drugs. It makes sense. Someone that is plagued by sin, especially sexual sin, can never get enough, unless they are on the road to conversion will only get worse as sin increases. People need the Lord, people need the Lord.
therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0023000.htm

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Just to play devil’s advocate, there are plenty of people who end up in horrible situations despite having a straight “lifestyle” as well. And plenty of gay people who end up in stable relationships, working steady jobs, and without any legal issues or drug abuse.

I was objecting to punisherthunder’s posts because they imply that (1) his cousin’s parents actually could have prevented him from becoming gay by “drawing a line in the sand” and

(2) that citing an example of a gay man getting AIDS and a drug habit, is a strong argument against same-sex activity.

I just don’t think this kind of temporal “don’t have sex with guys because you’ll get AIDS” is at all a strong argument. First of all, though the “ick” factor is often much less for lesbian sex (especially from the POV of straight men, many find lesbian sex to be a kinky turn-on, even as they find male homosexual sex to be revolting), as is the risk of them getting AIDS or other STDs, that doesn’t somehow make lesbian sex less of a moral issue than male gay sex.

Listen to Servant of God Father John Hardons series on homosexuality, very good. He talks about how most people practicing same sex acts are living a lifestyle of same sex acts with many others and drugs. It makes sense. Someone that is plagued by sin, especially sexual sin, can never get enough, unless they are on the road to conversion will only get worse as sin increases. ]

Yes, many who are into the “gay lifestyle” are promiscuous hedonists, but so are many who are into the straight “hookup culture”. Sexual sin is real, but I’ve never been convinced by the idea that “gay sexual sin is 1000x worse than straight sexual sin” especially when people argue this is the case because the temporal consequences are worse.

Again, lesbians have a DECREASED risk of getting AIDS compared to straight women, does this make their sins less heavy than the sins of promiscuous straight women?

I think people who focus on the temporal consequences of homosexuality may mean well, but are not approaching this in the best way. Telling someone “gay sex is bad because it leads to AIDS” is not at all getting to the heart of the problem.

BTW I’d say the same for people who focus on the temporal adverse effects of the Pill to try to convince people not to use any method of contraception, telling someone “ABC is bad because the Pill leads to blood clots and cancer” is also not getting to the heart of the issue.

 

[Bonnie]

(2) that citing an example of a gay man getting AIDS and a drug habit, is a strong argument against same-sex activity.

I know only 2 lesbian couples (might be more but they’re not talking to me about it) who have been together for years & don’t take drugs. One of the couples doesn’t even drink alcohol. If taking drugs & being promiscuous are a direct result of sexuality, then being a lesbian must be a good thing.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I know only 2 lesbian couples (might be more but they’re not talking to me about it) who have been together for years & don’t take drugs. One of the couples doesn’t even drink alcohol. If taking drugs & being promiscuous are a direct result of sexuality, then being a lesbian must be a good thing.

I really get the feeling many people, especially men, have a strong revulsion against the idea of men having sex with men, but have nowhere near the kind of revulsion to the idea of women having sex with women. So they focus 99% of their ire on gay men and ignore the lesbians, although per traditional Christian belief, lesbian sex is just as sinful.

Indeed, many secular straight men who are homophobic when it comes to gay men, will readily admit they find the idea of lesbians having sex to be a sexy turn-on, or at least unless both the lesbians are the “butch” types who look like men not women, and so activate their “eww, men with men are icky” response.

And, of course, at least the temporal consequences of same-sex activity, do not include harm to innocent children who are conceived only to be aborted, or born into horrible situations.

Now I know many gay people hire surrogates or use donor sperm so they can have biological children, or adopt children, but I doubt most of the hedonistic promiscuous drug-abusing types would deliberately take such steps to become parents, and it is impossible for them to become parents by accident. Sadly, that’s not the case for the straight hedonistic promiscuous drug-abusing types.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Whaaaatt? From all the fuss I expected something really in your face. This is it??

I find it hilarious that people are freaking out about this and not about the fact that the protagonist falls in love with an animal

I thought that is why it was being boycotted was the fact the female protagonist falls in love with an animal. I have never seen any version of Beauty and the Beast by the way. Wasn’t there a tv show based on yhis several years ago?

 

[Bonnie]

I thought that is why it was being boycotted was the fact the female protagonist falls in love with an animal. I have never seen any version of Beauty and the Beast by the way. Wasn’t there a tv show based on yhis several years ago?

But the Beast isn’t really an animal - he’s a man under an enchantment that that makes him appear to be an animal. As Catholics, we shouldn’t have a problem with something appearing to be one thing when it is really something else.

 

[7_Sorrows]

But the Beast isn’t really an animal - he’s a man under an enchantment that that makes him appear to be an animal. As Catholics, we shouldn’t have a problem with something appearing to be one thing when it is really something else.

I am not part of any boycott because the story doesn’t interest me, but as a Catholic I don’t think we are supposed to believe anyone can be under enchantment.

 

[Viki63]

I am not part of any boycott because the story doesn’t interest me, but as a Catholic I don’t think we are supposed to believe anyone can be under enchantment.

It’s a fairy tale.

Like the Lord of the Rings.
.