Sexual Orientation in Animated Disney films aimed at kids

[Fino]

Hmmm. I don't think they should promote gayness (is that a word?) in any way. I believe same sex marriage and romantic relationships are a sin, and portraying it in a positive way will mislead children.

I don't hate or fear gay people, I just don't approve of same sex romantic relationships. As a Christian, I can love and be friends with gay people. I just don't have to support or encourage their gayness.

This is the sort of opinion I can respect! My favorite person in the world has a similar view.

It's only when people do it in a roundabout way that my body reacts with those weird things called "emotions".

Someone once said to me, "I have no problem with gay people, I just don't want them to be gay where I can see it."

People should be proud of their beliefs! If they're not, then wouldn't that be an indication to change them?

Yes, "gayness" is a word!

 

[Judge]

Hmmm. I don't think they should promote gayness (is that a word?) in any way.

The only thing Disney is trying to promote in this instance is inclusiveness to optimize their audience share. It's just good business not to intentionally turn off a demographic of people that may well exceed ten percent of the population. Apart from risking bad public relations and even potential litigation relative to discrimination.

Like all publicly traded corporations, Disney has a primary responsibility to the financial interest of their shareholders first and foremost. It's strictly a business decision designed to be more conducive to all customers- not merely Christians, let alone heterosexuals.

 

[Fino]

The only thing Disney is trying to promote in this instance is inclusiveness to optimize their audience share. It's just good business not to intentionally turn off a demographic of people that may well exceed ten percent of the population.

Like all publicly traded corporations, Disney has a primary responsibility to the financial interest of their shareholders first and foremost. It's strictly a business decision designed to be more conducive to cu$tomer$- not merely Christians, let alone heterosexuals.

That's likely why it took until now to happen. These issues have been going on for as long as Disney has been around. They probably waited until there would be more support than backlash.

If the goal were social justice, it would have happened at least a decade ago, which was when I was saying that if Disney is so magical, why have they not done this yet? I'm glad it's finally happened, but it's clear that they waited for majority support, jumping on the bandwagon.

Close to 70% of Americans support gay marriage now, a number achieved mainly by generational turnover.

Every twitch of their finger is motivated first by profit.

But it is a good sign that this is what's profitable!

 

[Judge]

That's likely why it took until now to happen. These issues have been going on for as long as Disney has been around. They probably waited until there would be more support than backlash.

If the goal were social justice, it would have happened at least a decade ago, which was when I was saying that if Disney is so magical, why have they not done this yet? I'm glad it's finally happened, but it's clear that they waited for majority support, jumping on the bandwagon.

Close to 70% of Americans support gay marriage now, a number achieved mainly by generational turnover.

Every twitch of their finger is motivated first by profit.

But it is a good sign that this is what's profitable!

Social justice usually happens on a different level. Usually one relative to law and due process.

Though it never hurts when the private sector helps, even though it's obvious what motivate$ them first and foremost. Then again it's a no-brainer that discrimination and exclusion is bad business no matter what your reasoning may be. But yes, there's nothing "magical" about Disney. They're just a very pragmatic business entity in reality you don't ever want to cross.

Real social justice pertinent to the LGBTQ community began a very long time ago in the 70s, with murdered San Francisco Supervisor and Gay Activist Harvey Milk. Though as with any civil rights movement, it takes a great deal of time and struggle to move society at large in a new direction.

And when you can get our highest court in your favor, that's perhaps the best indicator that you've succeeded. In that respect, Christians already lost this battle with gay marriage. In a legal system at the top where historically, secular civil rights progress in only one direction- forwards.

 

[owlet]

I personally disliked Frozen, but having LGBT+ representation in a Disney film (especially the sequel to a very popular one) would be a really good thing, in my opinion. I did my thesis on representation of disability in media and there is a lot of weight in giving positive representation to minorities. On the topic of any controversy, if a homosexual romance is inappropriate for children, then so is a heterosexual one - yet kids have been watching Disney princess films for decades and there hasn't been a complaint about that.

Hmmm. I don't think they should promote gayness (is that a word?) in any way. I believe same sex marriage and romantic relationships are a sin, and portraying it in a positive way will mislead children.

I don't hate or fear gay people, I just don't approve of same sex romantic relationships. As a Christian, I can love and be friends with gay people. I just don't have to support or encourage their gayness.

The issue here is that if you're actively against representation and same sex marriage (calling homosexuality a sin etc.), you're not loving people who are homosexual, because you're wishing for fewer rights for them. You're wishing that they never be allowed to marry the person they love. If you're not married to your partner, you often aren't considered next of kin, which has awful legal ramifications. As for representation, it's extremely important for creating a more accepting society, so LGBT+ people aren't getting attacked for their sexuality. Try to imagine it if it were reversed and you were told loving your partner was a sin and you shouldn't be allowed to marry. How would it make you feel? What if you couldn't go out together in public in some places, for fear of being assaulted? You're advocating for people who aren't heterosexual to be kept as 'second class citizens' who don't have the same rights as you. To me, that's a far greater sin than loving someone who happens to be the same biological sex.

 

[Tom]

Its a thing. You have to show LGBT relationships. Shows,companies,people, get criticized if they don't. 'Your zombies do not reflect the diverse nature of our society' etc.

 

[Judge]

I probably should have pointed out perhaps the most important consideration of all in this particular scenario. That Disney is a publicly-traded corporation, subject to secular standards and practices under US law and precedent. That in essence, publicly-traded business entities do not have the luxury of claiming religious rights or moral objections extended through policy of how they run their business. Further complicated when such a business has utterly no restrictions as to who constitutes their clientele, whether as movie patrons or those visiting their theme parks.

Perhaps the most recent court precedent emphasizing such a distinction was that of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 2014. Where the Supreme Court ruled that as a privately-owned business entity, Hobby Lobby did have the right to be exempt from certain health insurance coverages relative to birth control. What is critical with this landmark decision is to understand that in this instance, Hobby Lobby remains a privately-owned business entity. The catalyst for them to be allowed to legally abstain from providing certain health insurance coverages that are perceived to conflict with their religious convictions.

As a publicly traded corporation, Disney cannot make such a claim even if they wanted to. Their shareholders likely constitute a globally collective number of persons representing any number of religious beliefs, as well as atheism.

Anyone recall that baker who refused to sell a wedding cake for a gay couple getting married? The sole proprietor won his case for essentially the same reasoning. Equally any private social club with official members can choose to legally deviate from most any civil rights and civil liberties stipulations and overtly discriminate against much of anyone they choose. Where even overt discrimination in defiance of law can be legally protected.

But a publicly owned corporation like Disney? No- absolutely not. The consideration to incorporate a gay character into any of their animated features ultimately just parallels the law of the land. It's not a statement of support for the gay community so much as simply legally complying with existing case law to avoid potential lawsuits. Protecting the assets of their shareholders and corporate charter. Lest we forget that Disney has two major corporate offices in both Burbank, California and New York City. Jurisdictions which remain notorious for their litigious legal climates.

Ultimately this isn't at all about political correctness or pandering, but simply giving the appearance of complying with civil legal concerns and precedents. They don't have to introduce a gay character, however to do so further insulates them from future lawsuits given present legal protections of GLBTQ citizens.

 

[WildCat]

If you're not homophobic, then why did this warrant its own thread? What big deal is this that you felt the need to mention it? This whole diversity thing has been going on for quite some time now in case you weren't paying attention.

 

[Mr Allen]

If you're not homophobic, then why did this warrant its own thread? What big deal is this that you felt the need to mention it? This whole diversity thing has been going on for quite some time now in case you weren't paying attention.

It's an animated Disney film largely aimed at young children, who won't understand a woman kissing another woman, that's the crux of my issue with this.

My 8 year old niece is clever. but even she doesn't know anything about other forms of sexuality, she's too young IMO.

 

[Judge]

Most children probably don't understand cartoon animals wearing clothing, let alone talking and carrying on like human beings either. Long before any of us were even born.

As for when they observe adult heterosexual manifestations of courtship and affection, they're likely to say "Ewwwwwwwww" anyways. And simply move on. No harm, no foul. Truth is there's a lot for kids to be confused about in most animated features. Not a big deal. They learn and adjust accordingly.

Frankly I'd be more concerned with a child's exposure to the nightly news.

 

[SunnyDay16]

It's an animated Disney film largely aimed at young children, who won't understand a woman kissing another woman, that's the crux of my issue with this.

My 8 year old niece is clever. but even she doesn't know anything about other forms of sexuality, she's too young IMO.

Well, kids don't understand a lot of things in kids movies. There's often subtext, innuendos, references, etc. that kids will miss. As far as a lesbian romance goes, I don't think it's too "out there" for kids to grasp. Romance has been shown in a ton of kids movies and will likely continue to be shown.

 

[Autistamatic]

One is never too young to understand love and it's many forms. Age is not an issue here. I understood what being gay meant before I was 5 years old, but then I used to read and pay attention to the world around me. I was taught about the existence of homosexuality along with a bunch of negative propaganda at Christian Sunday school when I was 4 or 5 too. I didn't see the problem then and I still don't - doesn't matter what you do with your bits or who you love as long as you CAN love and you treat people as equals. You should be able to love, marry, kiss, hug and fornicate with whoever you want providing it's consensual and over the age of consent, and no-one has a right to criticise or judge you.
Kids NEED to know that as soon as they begin to understand romance and pair bonding so they don't grow up with unhealthy ideas.
Don't be tempted to confuse ignorance with innocence.

 

[SunnyDay16]

One is never too young to understand love and it's many forms. Age is not an issue here. I understood what being gay meant before I was 5 years old, but then I used to read and pay attention to the world around me. I was taught about the existence of homosexuality along with a bunch of negative propaganda at Christian Sunday school when I was 4 or 5 too. I didn't see the problem then and I still don't - doesn't matter what you do with your bits or who you love as long as you CAN love and you treat people as equals. You should be able to love, marry, kiss, hug and fornicate with whoever you want providing it's consensual and over the age of consent, and no-one has a right to criticise or judge you.
Kids NEED to know that as soon as they begin to understand romance and pair bonding so they don't grow up with unhealthy ideas.
Don't be tempted to confuse ignorance with innocence.

"Consensual" being the key word here.

There's been quite a few idiots (not on this forum) equating making homosexuality socially acceptable with making bestiality or pedophilia acceptable. As far as I'm concerned, neither animals or children have the mental capacity to give consent. And I could be wrong but there's still plenty of countries that allow adults to have sex with and marry children.

 

[Monachopia]

There's been quite a few idiots (not on this forum) equating making homosexuality socially acceptable with making bestiality or pedophilia acceptable.

When I was talking about Russia earlier, I refrained from mentioning, that homosexuality is lumped into the same category and somewhat used interchangeably with pedophilia. Growing up in Moscow I know that somewhere that association was made in many subtle ways, so much so that as a kid I was scared of gay people and thought there was something deeply wrong with them. I'm so glad I moved to the UK when I was 10 and could see how utterly repulsive and backwards that society is. But because these ideas are so ingrained there and probably among other homophobic circles, you can see why those flawed arguments float up..

 

[Autistamatic]

There are @SunnyDay16 - the legal age of consent varies all over the world. The mid 80s Electro band Bronski Beat produced an album called "The Age of Consent" which had a list of all the hetero and homo ages of consent from all over the world in it's sleeve notes (vinyl & cassette days ) Very little has changed since then unfortunately. Homo ages of consent (for men) are still often higher than hetero ones, and some hetero ones are below what we are used to in the West. Being gay is still illegal in some places, like Saudi Arabia for example, punishable in the worst form possible.
If Disney featuring gay characters can have any impact, however small, on such attitudes they have my support, even if their motives are fiscal in nature. I am a hetero cis white guy, but if I was gay, trans, asexual, pansexual, bisexual or anything else I would feel no shame nor permit anyone to shame me.
We are a community of autistic people who mostly believe in neurodiversity. Why do some of us find it so hard to accept gender and sexual diversity also?

 

[Judge]

We are a community of autistic people who mostly believe in neurodiversity. Why do some of us find it so hard to accept gender and sexual diversity also?

Amen to that. If we can't accept them, how can we expect much of anyone to accept us?

 

[Fino]

That's how it is that history repeats itself. As a kid, I thought that phrase meant it would repeat things nearly identically, but it means the same things under another guise. People are generally not able to see that it's the same thing and will say, "No, this is different because..." and focus on some inconsequential detail and then unknowingly do everything that they're against.

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

One is never too young to understand love and it's many forms. Age is not an issue here.
…..
Kids NEED to know that as soon as they begin to understand romance and pair bonding so they don't grow up with unhealthy ideas.
Don't be tempted to confuse ignorance with innocence.

Agreed. My Year 3 school teacher was a lesbian, and my mum explained that to me by saying something along the lines of "Mrs. Lyndsey and her girlfriend love each other in the same way mummy and daddy love each other". I had no difficulty understanding that (I was about 8), and benefited from growing up with an example of a homosexual relationship. When a boy at my secondary school came out as gay, guess who were the only students who didn't make a big deal out of it? People from my primary school who knew Mrs. Lyndsey, that's who.

 

[Fino]

I'd argue that it would be easier for children to understand, not hampered by the countless prejudices and preconceptions we all inevitably develop with time. Absent the brainwashing of society and religion, how could it possibly not make sense for one human to love another?

"But mommy, I don't get it! Their genitals don't match and procreation is impossible! Isn't this unnatural?"

"Honey, the clothes you're wearing are unnatural, natural and unnatural are not criteria for morality."

"I don't accept your comparison...Can we get icecream?"

 

[Mr Allen]

I'd argue that it would be easier for children to understand, not hampered by the countless prejudices and preconceptions we all inevitably develop with time. Absent the brainwashing of society and religion, how could it possibly not make sense for one human to love another?

"But mommy, I don't get it! Their genitals don't match and procreation is impossible! Isn't this unnatural?"

"Honey, the clothes you're wearing are unnatural, natural and unnatural are not criteria for morality."

"I don't accept your comparison...Can we get icecream?"

@Fino, why would you mark my comment "funny"?! I was being serious.