Have not see Maleficent, but I have heard nuts claiming Frozen was some kind of pro-gay film. It is resolved by (non-romantic) love between family members. I saw the movie twice in theater with my kid and couldn't find ANY indication of gay-ness. Anna ends up going after a man. The main plot is about self acceptance and embracing who you really are. While that metaphor can easily be applied to being gay (in todays world), I suspect the only people who instinctively made the connection are either gay or terribly anti-gay.
Gotta love Elsa, her and Merida are the best.
I didn't read into it that at all. I don't know which intended meaning Disney had when they adapted the story into a script and animation; but it seems to resonate with different people differently (as is often the case with movies).
I saw it in staunch contrast to the historical Disney "Princess" narrative, where happily-ever-after doesn't mean marriage, remarking how they openly mocked the idea of falling in love with someone and marrying them after a single day.
I'd have to ask him directly, but he could have easily seen the movie from Elsa's perspective, the woman imbued with a gift, or curse. Both perspectives are presented in the movie, if memory serves me, and it entirely depends on the person speaking at the time. The parents thought it was a curse. The trolls saw it differently. Whatever the reality of her situation, she fled, and then accepted who she was, and eventually defeated the parts of her gift that had made it so sad to have.
Perhaps, then, it is both. It was a movie that was a push away from the 'True Love's Kiss' story of Disney olde, as much as it was a story about accepting who you are. And the whole story is bound together by the very real presence of the two sister's familial love for one another.
Close enough. Life is about reproducing, or else we would not be here. +1 for impressionable young girls.
Had a Swedish guy (shop owner) living with another guy and they both had a bunch of kids. Described the other guy and kids as his "family."
See point #5 in this article's list: http://mic.com/articles/79455/7-moments-that-made-frozen-the...
This is quite a stretch. As the father of a young child I have seen Frozen more times than I am proud to admit, and while it could be that the large man in the sauna is the shopkeeper's husband, he could just as easily be the shopkeeper's son, while the smaller woman in the scene is the shopkeeper's wife.
Even if you assume this to canonically be a gay relationship in a Disney movie (and it would, I suppose, be the first), it's a tiny throwaway moment in the life of a minor character which is easy to miss completely. This is hardly "taking a stand" as the grandparent post suggested.
This is the example being used to show Disney is "progressive"? An ambiguous possibly gay family that gets less than 5 seconds screen time?
Saying that this miniscule gesture is hetter than nothing is missing the big point. It's the twenty first century - Disney should have had gay characters and even gay leads by mow.
And for all its progressiveness Frozen still has a scene where mental illness is linked to danger using stigmatising language.
Just a heads up so you don't make the mistake in less forgiving Scandinavian company next time ;-)
Agenda? People only use that term when they're trying to imply something is somehow pushing homosexuality on the weak minded.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Most individuals have agendas, and all organizations have (or should have) agendas.
We should all be able to talk honestly about various agendas without having to toe some manipulative lines concerning presumed hidden meanings.
Just because many homophobes, rightwingers, etc constantly harp on the 'homosexual agenda' as if its some scary monster, doesn't mean that LGBT rights organizations don't have agendas.
[ Did you read (critically) the comment I was responding to?
I mostly agree with your statement, except for the implication you may be making that agenda always has this pejorative meaning. It simply doesn't. If you want to understand people, you should not assume that it always does. And we should not police people for choosing to bring the non-pejorative acknowledgement of the fact that groups have purposes and goals.
If LGBT groups did not have agendas, they would not be worth supporting. ]
Writing is an act of art, and reading is an act of interpretation. These secondary definitions come into play when determining what someone means. Agenda is not purely pejorative, and it's true LGBT groups have agendas - they have plans of things to be done - they have motives - reasons for doing something. However, these attributes of LGBT groups could also be described with words that do not have any negative aspects, such as goals, plans, purposes, etc.
>If you want to understand people...
I assume people understand the words they use and intend to use them. If people use words without precision, how can they expect to be understood?
As for etiquette... no idea ha. Made the same mistake myself.
a) "they're trying to convert our children!" paranoia
b) general disapproval.
There are at least two more:
c) dispassionate acknowledgement
d) outright support
I absolutely, strongly support the LGBT community's agenda of making gay marriage legal, everywhere.
Just because one hateful group of people uses a phrase in one particular way, doesn't mean we need to give them ownership of it, nor assume that everyone using the same term feels the same way they do.
If one were to say, "I support legal equality for LGBT couples compared to straight couples", as well as "I question the health of LGBT acceptance in society", would you find their opinion repugnant?
If so, then you're pushing LGBT on everyone.
For the record, I truly support legal equality, and don't see how accepting LGBT in society is harmful. But the above example is a reflection of many more people than the echo chamber at HN would like to acknowledge.
1. What I find repugnant doesn't push anything on anyone.
2. My comment had nothing to do with what you or I do, it had to do with the above comment about Disney and Coke showing LGBT people in shows and ads.
By this logic, your logic, they have been "pushing" straight, black, hispanic, white, Christian, Jewish, youth, and elderly on us for years. Having the individual (or couple) on the show/ad does not in and of itself "push" anything. That's absurd.
edit: I just realized I got dragged way off topic by a troll. Whoops.
The original comment I responded to was someone claiming there's no "pushing" going on. As you clearly demonstrated, you're willing to "pressure" religious groups -- there's nothing wrong with that, but more people should be honest about it. From my perspective, the appropriate types of pressure are internal pressure (ie, members changing the group's ideas) or competitive pressure (other organizations that already are on the opposite side), not tax pressure.
The fact that some religious groups have taken a particular stand doesn't make it "not pushy" to force other groups to follow.
EDIT: for example, a lot of religions don't have a problem with pork, but some do. It would be pushy to require a kosher or halal deli to serve pork. Likewise, there are some who want to require, say, Southern Baptist churches to perform same-sex weddings; that's pushy.
... in your understanding of the Bible. Not every Christian group agrees with the way you understand it.
Also keep in mind that many Christian groups rely on more than just the Bible for authority (both Catholics and the Orthodox hold a very high view of tradition, compared to the Protestant view of tradition as dangerous.)
There are also religious groups that aren't Christian which also have objections to performing same-sex weddings.
Anyway, thank you for so beautifully illustrating my point.
They believe they have defenses for their interpretations, and that's all that should matter from a religious liberty perspective. Neither you nor I nor the government qualify as the final arbiter of "true Christianity" or "correct Bible interpretation" (or "true Islam" or "true Mormonism" or any of the other religions which might object to same-sex marriage.) It's not my place, or yours, or the government's, to force our understanding of what the Bible says onto groups that think the Bible (or the Pope or the Synod) says otherwise.
If members of the community wish to perform acts which are against a particular church's beliefs, they don't need to perform those acts in that church (and if you want bacon, you don't need to shop at a kosher deli.) There are plenty of alternatives -- like you said, other churches that will happily perform those ceremonies for them, or even the courthouse.
EDIT: just so there's no misunderstanding: I support your right to have whatever relationship you want to have with whatever consenting adult(s) you want to have it with. But none of us have the right to tell anybody else that they have to participate in the celebration of any relationship. (If a church wants to turn away Brittney Spears because her understanding of marriage offends them, that's also their right.)
I don't have a problem with pressure. I have a problem with people saying that nobody is pushing when some people actually are. Thank you for being honest about trying to pressure and compel religious groups to change. (I, too, often pressure my own religion for change -- though I prefer compelling arguments to financial threats.)
We don't allow for-profit, tax-paying corporations to discriminate. Why, then, do we think the appropriate response to a religious organization being discriminatory is to treat them as a for-profit organization? It seems to me that tax law isn't the right tool to be wielding; it's very philosophically inconsistent.
More than that, it seems to me that the government's responsibility should be to allow for maximum diversity of opinion and practice. The government has a compelling interest in stopping systematic violence (whether motivated by race, gender, sexuality, or any other factor.) The government has a compelling interest in stopping systematic economic discrimination. But I don't see a compelling interest in eliminating all forms of discrimination everywhere. I think it's a Good Thing (TM) that religious organizations can decide who is and isn't a part of them. Even if that means some religious organizations are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. they should have that right within their own doors. (Some religious groups have even more extreme requirements for marriage. Because Mormons believe in eternal marriage, they won't "seal" a divorced or widowed woman who has already been "sealed" before. It's discriminatory, but well within their rights as an organization.)
I definitely feel like there is some amount of "pushing homosexuality on everyone" that has been going on the past five or ten years. It's no longer socially acceptable to think that homosexuality is wrong or an unhealthy sexual expression. Even donating to an anti-homosexuality lobby can get you pressured to resign [1]. Depending on the state you live in, you may have to accept gay marriage, even if it violates what you feel like marriage is. I don't know if sex-ed in schools is teaching it yet, but if not, I assume it is just a matter of time. If homosexuality is an unhealthy expression of sexuality, you won't want your kids exposed to that, but, no choice.
For people who agree that LGBT is acceptable, this probably feels like progress. For people who view LGBT as unhealthy sexual expression, the net effect feels a lot like "pushing homosexuality" on us.
[1] Brendan Eich, former Mozilla CEO
"that's why there is a word for it" Well that particular word actually is far younger than thousands of years: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
Kinda makes you wonder a little bit our current distinctions and their actual relevance to the human condition.
"you may have to accept gay marriage, even if it violates what you feel like marriage is" What you feel like marriage is has nothing to do with what it actually is, which is a very well-defined legal construct outlined by the state. Your feelings are valid in a different context perhaps, but when it comes to the legal definition it's not a compelling part of the argument. In that context, a great many arguments have been heard in court and gay marriage bans have been roundly rejected, many in a bipartisan decision.
"If homosexuality is an unhealthy expression of sexuality, you won't want your kids exposed to that" Kids are going to be exposed. Gay people exist, and kids will and do meet them. Some 2-6% of the kids in that sex ed class are going to be gay themselves. Not saying parents shouldn't have a voice in this, just pointing out that prohibition is dangerous. You can't hide the word gay from children, and denied knowledge often only serves to generate greater curiosity. I would hope some clinical information about how to be healthy and gay isn't asking too much of these fragile creatures, but perhaps heterosexuality is really hanging from a thread? Somehow I doubt that.
I suppose it does. But if one of your children should happen to be gay, you've left no question, from what you've written, that you won't hesitate to push heterosexuality on them.
We care more about them finding a path to self-acceptance than we do about your prejudice.
I doubt anyone can do anything to change a paraphilia; pushing normative sexuality on someone is unlikely to be productive.
But I don't think self-acceptance is a good goal either. There are many unhealthy things in each of us; we shouldn't accept them, but rather should fight against them. I'm naturally lazy; I like to eat a lot; I'm selfish; I talk over others—I have to struggle against each of those deficiencies.
Due to this change in society, it is difficult and becoming more so to marry in the older sense. The more people who adopt the latter meaning, the fewer will retain the older. And even those who think they do are inevitably influenced by the rest.
I don't care much more about two homosexuals claiming to have married one another than I do about someone claiming to be a prophet or the reincarnation of Galileo; what worries me is the continued removal of any meaning from marriage.
Also, the lifelong nuclear family is something that only really appeared after the wars. Pre-war there was no antibiotics and the rates of female death were so high that single parent families were much more common than they are today. If your worries about developments in marriage are that it will reduce the stability for the upbringing of children, I would like you to consider which eras you are choosing for comparison, as we are now living in an era that supports longer childhoods than seemingly at any other point in history.
edit - for the complaint that it is difficult to find more traditional people as spouses, may I point out that there are a number of other people who seem to be making that complaint. Presumably you could find their parental address, so that you can appear in person to make a formal request to their father to begin courting. Oh, and remember to bring some cattle.
And with your presumption that the answer you're likely to get on HN might be "handwavey nonsense"?
Or are you implying that Fantasia's Sorcerer and Micky Mouse are gay just because they wave their hands around to conjure up colorful butterflies, broomsticks, comets, waves and storm clouds?
People have been accusing Disney of "pushing the gay agenda" (negatively) for years -- but those same people have not been able to point to concrete examples of people with same-sex attraction, they've only been able to point to BS like Mickey Mouse having a high voice. Now in this thread people are suggesting Disney is "taking a stand" (positive phrasing of the same issue) -- but they still seem to be lacking concrete examples. It seems inappropriate to credit Disney for "taking a stand" (or to criticize them for "pushing an agenda") without being able to point to an unambiguous, romantically-involved same-sex couple.
I suspect DanBC is like me -- I'd like to see an unambiguous example before categorizing Disney as "taking a stand".
I'd prefer specific examples rather than just handwavey nonsense.