• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Beauty and the Beast's 'exclusively gay moment'

Neither of the characters in the gay subplot were in the original story.



No worse than them doing the same with staightness since the invention of cinema.

You know that the majority of the population is straight, right? I wonder if straight people really want to see two dudes make out. I'm going to go with no. You?
 
Because they are movies with adults in them, and that's just part of being an adult.

If parents want to show their children movies devoid of sexual themes, they should focus on cartoons that feature anthropomorphic objects.

Are these movies for kids? Or movies for adults that should carry an R rating?
 
Who said anything about sexual themes? There's no reason that the relationship depicted between two male characters will be any more sexualised that the relationship between the two leads (with it's bestiality undertones that all the objectors are conveniently overlooking of course :) ).

Gay themes aren't sexual themes? Eh?

Don't many other Disney's already have a pair of leading men? I'm thinking of Durango here.
I don't understand what's to be gained by Disney in going beyond that.
 
Gay themes aren't sexual themes? Eh?
As I said, no more that the straight relationship that forms the core of the plot. Part of the problem here is the objectors who refuse to (or are psychologically incapable of) recognising homosexual relationships as having just as wide a scope as heterosexual relationships rather than just being about about sex.

I don't understand what's to be gained by Disney in going beyond that.
To be honest, I think that could well be a valid point but the benefit (or cost) to the private company is their business. The objection here appears to be some kind of moral one and the suggestion that they shouldn't (or be allowed to!) do it even if they did see an artistic, economic or social benefit.
 
I don't have a problem with "diversity characters" but it's the way they publicize it.
Just put him the movie and don't make a stink about it.

Most folks will probably shrug it off and not make a deal.
It's when it feels forced and shoehorned, where the problem lies.

The people making a stink about it are, well, people like our illustrious OP.
 
Everything having a gay couple in it wasn't the main reason I gave up TV and movies, but it was at the top of the list.

On a related note, a movie theater in Mississippi isn't showing the movie because of this issue. It's about damn time the progressive Hollywood social engineering agenda gets some push back.

"Gay people exist."

SOCIAL ENGINEEEERRINNNNG!
 
As I said, no more that the straight relationship that forms the core of the plot. Part of the problem here is the objectors who refuse to (or are psychologically incapable of) recognising homosexual relationships as having just as wide a scope as heterosexual relationships rather than just being about about sex.

To be honest, I think that could well be a valid point but the benefit (or cost) to the private company is their business. The objection here appears to be some kind of moral one and the suggestion that they shouldn't (or be allowed to!) do it even if they did see an artistic, economic or social benefit.

Agreed. I see absolutely no problem with a peripheral gay relationship showing up in a film. Sheesh. There are far more problems with B&tB than a gay relationship--you know, the whole beast thing and the obvious misogyny prevalent in the theme itself.
 
"Gay people exist."

SOCIAL ENGINEEEERRINNNNG!

Sorry, but it's a fact that Hollywood uses their medium to push their view points on their audience. Hell, everyone is doing it these days. Have you noticed how many interracial couples their are in just TV commercials alone?
 
Sorry, but it's a fact that Hollywood uses their medium to push their view points on their audience. Hell, everyone is doing it these days. Have you noticed how many interracial couples their are in just TV commercials alone?

Almost as many as I see every day in person. :roll:
 
Agreed. I see absolutely no problem with a peripheral gay relationship showing up in a film. Sheesh. There are far more problems with B&tB than a gay relationship--you know, the whole beast thing and the obvious misogyny prevalent in the theme itself.

Ok, my curiosity is getting the best of me. What is the obvious misogyny theme?
 
Everything having a gay couple in it wasn't the main reason I gave up TV and movies, but it was at the top of the list.

On a related note, a movie theater in Mississippi isn't showing the movie because of this issue. It's about damn time the progressive Hollywood social engineering agenda gets some push back.

Do you close your eyes so nothing get shoved down your throat? Cuz gays are everywhere, even on the internets. Oh look, there are some now...

gaykiss.jpg
 
Do you close your eyes so nothing get shoved down your throat? Cuz gays are everywhere, even on the internets. Oh look, there are some now...

View attachment 67214805

It figures you can't think of anything to do but that. Oh and yeah, I consider it gross and I always will consider it gross. All Hollywood did was drive people away with that nonsense.
 
Well yea, but if the movie makers just "organically inserted" the people in the movies.
I'd imagine most wouldn't notice nor give a crap.

Um, to these people, there's literally no such thing as organically inserting (*snort*) homosexuality.

To them, it's inherently unnatural and therefore unnatural to any story.
 
You said you gave up TV. So then how would you know how common it is?

I can't imagine it has gotten less common since I left. The trend when I left was more interracial couples, more gay couples and more warrior chicks and I bet that trend is still going strong today.
 
It figures you can't think of anything to do but that. Oh and yeah, I consider it gross and I always will consider it gross. All Hollywood did was drive people away with that nonsense.

oh noz!!!!!! You was exposed to something you do not like!!!!!!!!! Man, that never happens to any one else!!!!!!!!!!

Do you need a safe space? You seem to be triggered.
 
oh noz!!!!!! You was exposed to something you do not like!!!!!!!!! Man, that never happens to any one else!!!!!!!!!!

Do you need a safe space? You seem to be triggered.

I watched TV and movies for entertainment and being grossed out is not entertaining. If wanted to deal with all the things I don't like I wouldn't be looking for a little escape with some TV.
 
I can't imagine it has gotten less common since I left. The trend when I left was more interracial couples, more gay couples and more warrior chicks and I bet that trend is still going strong today.

Considering that not too long ago, the number of such in commercials was zero, more really does not mean much.
 
Considering that not too long ago, the number of such in commercials was zero, more really does not mean much.

It's been awhile since the Cheerios dad commercial.
 
Ok, my curiosity is getting the best of me. What is the obvious misogyny theme?

You're kidding. Right?

Belle falls in love with the abusive "Beast" in order to turn him back into a prince. Case 1.

Prince imprisons Belle in his castle. But, surprise surprise, she develops feelings for the creep anyway. Classic Stockholm syndrome. Case 2.

There's probably more, but I am not exactly an expert on this movie. But, I know the basic theme, and it's misogynist to the core.
 
I watched TV and movies for entertainment and being grossed out is not entertaining.

OK, this is really complex, but try and keep up. See, in the USA, we have this thing called "capitalism". The neat thing about capitalism is that consumers(that would be the people who buy a good or service, in the case of TV and movies, the viewer) have alot of power. If they find movies or TV not entertaining, they do not watch them, and them because of capitalism, those movies and TV shows do poorly. Hollywood, contrary to what certain people believe, exists to make money...lots and lots and lots of money. If portraying certain people that you find so triggering means they are making less money, they will not portray those people. So see, the power is in your hands. All you have to do is find enough snowflakes triggered by gay people and tell them to stop watching movies and TV.
 
It's been awhile since the Cheerios dad commercial.

Do you mean this commercial?



If so, less than 4 years, hardly any time at all.
 
You're kidding. Right?

Belle falls in love with the abusive "Beast" in order to turn him back into a prince. Case 1.

Prince imprisons Belle in his castle. But, surprise surprise, she develops feelings for the creep anyway. Classic Stockholm syndrome. Case 2.

There's probably more, but I am not exactly an expert on this movie. But, I know the basic theme, and it's misogynist to the core.

You know, now that you start to go over why the story is sexist I feel like I have heard this before.
 
Back
Top Bottom