Posted on 03/12/2017 12:07:51 PM PDT by drewh
The Atlantic contributor and Religion News Service (RNS) columnist Jonathan Merritt lashed out at conservative Christians for opposing the so-called gay “moment” in the upcoming Beauty and the Beast remake, charging they’re coming across as “antiquated bigots” keeping people from “coexist[ing].”
Writing with the title “Flaming hypocrisy in evangelical Disney boycott” and subhead “Avoiding the subject of homosexuality will not prepare kids for the real world,” Merritt showed pettiness from the start, knocking Christians for “hav[ing] opted for sackcloth and ashes” upon the news about LeFou (Josh Gad) instead of “singing and dancing.”
Merritt targeted Franklin Graham, our friends at LifeSiteNews.com, and an Alabama drive-in movie theater as marquee opponents of the gay character before spouting off:
Conservative Christian outrage over any positive portrayals of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in film and television is a tale as old as time, but this effort seems particularly misguided. It risks making Christians look like antiquated bigots, and it reeks of moral hypocrisy. Worse, it diverts energy from a more worthwhile effort: teaching Christian children to coexist in a pluralistic society.
Merritt complained that, despite details about the character and reports of the scene in question, it’s not a big deal because, first, “[t]here are no explicit discussions in the film about gay rights, gay marriage or the morality of gay relationships.”
<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
DONATE The other two reasons were weak, with the second being LeFou not being explicitly in love with or dating someone of the same sex and third being the “subtle” interaction with Gaston lasted only one scene.
Merritt added with more attacks on conservative Christians by constructing a classless strawman that such disapproval with Disney “makes it appear that these Christians object to the mere existence of gay people.”
Of course, the topic of President Donald Trump came up as well:
And even if Graham were right and there were some discernable “agenda” in this film, a boycott would reek of hypocrisy. After all, conservative Christian leaders just helped elect President Trump, and a whopping 81% of white evangelicals voted for the real estate mogul. In light of this, the boycott looks like a Mickey Mouse position and Goofy double standard.
It’s impossible to reconcile boycotting Disney for including a kind-of-sort-of-possibly gay character in a film while supporting a thrice-married serial liar who has bragged about bedding married women and has admitted to grabbing women’s genitals without permission.
(....)
Rankled Christians are motivated by a desire to protect their children from a view of sexuality that conflicts with their religious beliefs. But is boycotting this film the best way to accomplish that goal? LGBT people have long left the closet. They exist in every corner and level of society.
The RNS columnist turned his attention to questioning whether a decision by Christian families to not see Beauty and the Beast could hinder children from being exposed to gay people and thus “not prepare kids for a world where it is almost totally accepted.”
Ad Feedback “Energy would be better invested in teaching children to understand and coexist alongside people who might not share their beliefs and practices,” he suggested.
He concluded with the prediction that “[a] boycott today would be even less effective given that conservative Christians wield less cultural influence.”
Disney needs the gay demos to compensate for the fact that no male will want to see the film on his own...
Homosexuality is a serious mental dysfunction and needs to be handled accordingly.
It is wrong to promote something so terribly unhealthy to children.
Don’t just boycott this horribly destructive movie. Boycott everything Disney.
Argumentum ad populum
As my common sense filled mom used to say “If all the kids on the block thought it was good to jump off a cliff and get killed would you follow them?”
Basically its a case against mob rule/pure democracy.
Just in my lifetime, homosexuality has gone from forbidden to discouaged to accepted to approved to recommended.
Next up is mandatory.
I love name calling
It immediately labels the speaker with impaired cognition
They know Christians consider butt sects and pole-smoking to be an abomination, but they are disappointed in us because ... we don’t like queers in a childrens’ movie?
Homosexuals are only 3% of the population but commit about 40% of assaults against children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
Homosexuality has always been a mental disease, like liberalism but we tolerate both. Non-pedophiliac homosexuals should count their blessings. Muslims would, if they could, kill pedophiles and homosexuals.
Keep your sickness away from children, smegma SJWs. Patience may be a cardinal virtue but it has its limits.
blah blah blah blah blah!!!
Who kissed who? Did the Beast cut Belle for Gaston?
You’re not wrong on that.
Current theory at least for some, is that young people need to taste the forbidden fruit to know for sure if they are straight or gay.
“How can you know unless you have tried both?”
I don’t see that all the time, but I have seen it out there.
It is also disgusting the number of times I see supposedly straight guys in movies now doing things that don’t come naturally to men.
They are doing their best to turn this into Sodom and Gomorrah.
Queers: Obession with your crotch to the point that you call yourself by what you do with it is sick. It didn’t used to be any of my damn business but you made it my business when you decided that your peepee obsession be called ‘good’ by me and mine..
2014 numbers
Just 11 percent of Americans think Hollywood movies frequently portray American life accurately, while another 45% think they do so sometimes. Thirty-seven percent think Hollywood movies portray American life accurately rarely, or never.
The queer character in Beauty and the Beast is meant to indoctrinate children. The people who oppose it are not hypocrites. They are just decent, normal people with their heads straight.
Obama is gone. We do not need all this homosexual nonsense.
IIRC the word translated as "hypocrite" in the New Testament refers to actors.
Apparently the “gay moment” is little more than briefly dancing together at a ball. You get more than that from Bugs Bunny in drag.
They are the ones who brought it up and they are now dismayed at the push back.
Interesting that Bugg’s clowning in a dress used to be just that—clowning. I remember Powder Puff football when the guys dressed up as cheerleaders, trying to outdo each other to be the ugliest girl ever. A riot—back when you could laugh. My favorite was when Buggs dressed as Brunhilda the Valkyrie, to make a fool of Fudd.
How do you know unless you have tried it? They are going in that direction??
As a straight male, I can answer based on desire. I desire the female, and am strongly interested in women. I don’t feel any such desire to be intimate with a man.
So if they are saying try it, you might like it, I would say, I just have no interest in going there. I won’t try it because I have no desire nor curiosity about participating in homosexuality.
The “Love That Dared Not Speak Its Name” now it just won’t shut the feek up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.