Most have already heard that Disney sees nothing amiss with pitching homosexual activity to you—and to your children. Yet if we accept one simple premise, then what Disney is doing is perfectly okay.
Here is that premise: homosexuality is not wrong.
Society (largely) agrees with this premise. Assuming it is true, then it really is okay for you, for your friends, and, most importantly, for your children to be exposed to homosexual activity.
By “exposed”, I don’t mean anything lurid like graphic sex. Our culture still agrees this material should be kept under ever-loosening wraps. No: I mean “innocent” images, in the same way kids are shown pictures of normal people holding hands, having a smooch, telling each other of their love and affection. Everyday stuff. Pleasant and heartwarming.
It’s obvious Disney buys the premise and understands its implications. In an episode of Disney’s Star vs the Forces of Evil, a cartoon series (which has certain difficulties) targeted to children, there was shown two men clasping hands and kissing one another. In the same episode are shown one woman grabbing another’s face while kissing. These were couples, and meant to be couples, with the message that, as society tells us, “gay” couples are no different than ordinary couples. Cute, loving couples. Homosexuality is desirable, Disney says.
The parent company of Mickey Mouse is also releasing a live-action (as opposed to dead-action?) version of Beauty and the Beast in which the character “LeFou, will experience Disney’s first ever ‘gay moment’ on screen, as he struggles with his feelings for ultra-macho leading man Gaston.” According to the Telegraph:
In an interview with Attitude magazine, director Bill Condon said: “LeFou is somebody who on one day wants to be Gaston and on another day wants to kiss Gaston.
“He’s confused about what he wants. It’s somebody who’s just realizing that he has these feelings.
“And Josh [Gad, who plays LeFou] makes something really subtle and delicious out of it.
“And that’s what has its pay-off at the end, which I don’t want to give away. But it is a nice, exclusively gay moment in a Disney movie.”
Make that an exclusively gay moment.
And why not? If there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts, then there is certainly nothing wrong with having a lovable male character express his desire for the male hero.
Though it isn’t reported that this will happen in the film, there would also have been nothing wrong with having the pair have one of those romantic kisses Disney is so good at. Gaston and LeFou could have been eating a baguette (this being France) and discover they are munching the same buttered crust! Sort of like the spaghetti scene in Lady and the Tramp. Awww.
There just cannot be any objection to scenes like this—if the premise is true. Tom Gilson says Disney’s actions are part of “a strategy centered in positive imagery” about homosexuality. He’s surely right about that, but he need not be. That is, there could be no strategy or plan to inculcate our youth in “alternative” sexualities. What is happening could simply be folks employed in the entertainment industry acting as if they accept the premise.
If the movie succeeds, why would Disney stop at Beauty and the Beast? Why not have Winnie the Pooh take a gay lover? I’m just spitballing here, but let’s say we reveal Eeyore to be a dog who thinks he’s a mule. After all, he does have that pin-on tail.
The lovable chipmunks Chimp and Dale turn out to be more than just roommates. Imagine the possibilities with Goofy! Goofy, for crying out loud!
But that’s enough: you get the idea. Contribute your ideas below.
The point should be blazingly obvious by now. If homosexual acts are okay, there is nothing in the world wrong with depicting them in popular culture, in sex “education” classes, in preschools to high schools, in everything and everywhere.
In 2003, our (so-called) Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas in effect ruled that homosexual acts were a “fundamental right.”
Our legal system and therefore government has thus decided the premise is true. Even some “conservatives” say it is. Even some priests. Even you?
The Pink Pudenda Parade
What else would you expect after ABC’s takeover in the 90’s with
luminaries like Michael Eisner at the helm the move from family
entertainment to indoctrination was a fait accompli. This all dovetails
with the MSM model, adopted from Soviet counter programing, of
demoralization, mediocrity, and the total conformity to PC elements.
We have moved from the tacit tolerance of Gay Pride Parades to the
spectacle of pink pudenda sporting claxons marching en mass to
destroy the system that has fed, housed, clothed, and protected them.
It’s a brave new world devoid of conscience and human decency, based
on nothing more than impulse and immediate gratification. What’s
the next five year plan the next big spectacle?..Pedophilic Rights Parades
with concomitant demands of liberte, egalite, fraternite. Many Western
governments have already turned a blind eye to the Islamist practice
of child marriage and sexual exploitation, all glossed over and hidden
by a mass media we’ve allowed to edit our lives.
Poor arguements deserve to be challenged (the mere fact that one might agree with a conclusion so reached ought not validate faulty reasoning used to get there).
We read, “These were couples, and meant to be couples, with the message that, as society tells us, “gay” couples are no different than ordinary couples. Cute, loving couples.”
From which comes this asserted, very next sentence, conclusion, “Homosexuality is desirable, Disney says.”
How does similarity (‘coupleship’) immediately lead to a value assertion about the defining feature of the minority??
Direct Analogy: in the 1950s, for example, Jews often could not get jobs, homes, etc. in areas controlled by WASPs. Such white-on-white discrimination was overt. Some films then portrayed Jews as “normal” in all ways but for their faith in a manner exactly as alleged portrayed by Disney re gays. Nobody, then or now, can look back at any of those films and assert, “Judaism/converting to Judaism is desirable.”
That illustrates how there’s something fundamentally flawed with the logic applied in today’s essay.
In closing, citing Lawrence v Texas, comes this: “Our legal system and therefore government has thus decided the premise [homosexuality is not wrong] is true.”
That too is false.
Linking to Justice Scalia’s dissent, accepting that as correct (for the sake of argument), what we learn is that the S. Court merely concocted a Constitutional right [to sodomy] via legally unsupportable rationale. Properly reached, or not, a court determination that a behavior engaged in by both gays & straights alike is a “fundamental right” is a very very long way from assigning any moral value to a defining characteristic of a particular group most likely to engage in that behavior [“homosexuality is not wrong”].
Such is the kind of intellectual yoga observed here time & again on this theme.
One wonders how this remark by Scalia (same opinion as above) was overlooked:
“Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change.”
Legalization & normalization of homosexuality via PROPER democratic means is just fine and was, then, progressing properly…until the Lawrence v Texas decision. Scalia is on record for supporting an outcome [normalization of homosexuality in society] if achieved via legitimate democratic & associated judicial processes.
Therein seems to be the real issue here … an inability to accept even legitimate change (and the overall trend, say what one will of Lawrence v Texas, etc., is of overwhelming change toward social acceptance). This prompts a different question, what is the bigger social threat in a democracy such as the U.S’s: Normalization of homosexuality and granting equal legal rights to homosexuals, or, furtherance a particular religious belief’s value system via rationale that would have government institutions perform contrary to legitimate democratic processes?
What we seem to observe here is an advocacy via flawed intellectual yoga that even Scalia, an avowed R. Catholic and no supporter of homosexuality on personal moral grounds, could never endorse.
Is not Disney attempting to make same-sex relationships desirable? Was this not why the press reports were so glowing in their praise of the bold moves that Disney is making? Children are very impressionable, and emulate things that they see on tv or at the movies without fully understanding the implications.
Little boys generally prefer the company of little boys, and little girls prefer the company of little girls. When they are shown at a young age depictions of an adult same sex relationship, they may misinterpret the terms on which their own much more innocent companionships are set. (Surely, you’re laughing, but I am aware of some dreadful accounts of sex abuse happening between children of very young ages.)
Children are not fully formed adults, and they should not be treated as if they were. They should not be expected to have to wrestle with very adult questions of sexuality. If anyone would insist that children be introduced to such concepts when they aren’t psychologically ready, I would suggest that there is an ulterior motive that isn’t entirely pure.
There used to be a clearer line between entertainment that was suited for children, and what was suited to adults. In general, this was observed, with kids keeping to “their” section of of the library, and the adults theirs. That is not to say that some read above their grade level. If the parents didn’t monitor the children’s reading material, the librarian would.
At the movies, there were G movies for the tykes, PG for the slightly older, and R for over 16, and X for Betty-close-your-eyes. Since the advent of cable/VCRs/DVD players, all kinds of entertainment are available for a kid who has the sense to switch on the television. Cable in its infancy aired the bluer fare in late night, long after the kiddos were presumably fast asleep. There is no longer a vibrant community effort to “protect the children” and they are on their own. God help them.