but isn't that typecasting . You could then argue that gay men shouldn't be cast in straight roles by that logic.After reading the article, I think it would make more sense for them to have the role be by someone that is actually gay.
I just saw on CNN that this film will feature the first openly gay character in a Disney movie. I just thought I would share!
Yeah. I wouldn't only see if it was necessary if he was like the main character and/or the story was revolved around the LGBTQ+ community. But it is nice that Disney is branching out and trying new things.I am guessing it is G. Unless there is some violence in it. Either way, the newest Jurassic Park was PG-13 and lots of kids saw that with their parents. The gay theme isn't necessary for this type of film.
Yeah. I wouldn't only see if it was necessary if he was like the main character and/or the story was revolved around the LGBTQ+ community. But it is nice that Disney is branching out and trying new things.
The plot of the film is a boat going through a jungle cruise with supernatural happenings according to the overview of it. Why make a character's sexuality part of the plot in a movie like this?
So there shouldn't be any heterosexual love interests or romances or marriages in such a movie? Because that happens. All. The. Time.
You do know that if there is a gay character, there won't be gay graphic sexual activity, right?
Depending on the age the movie is intended for. But if you notice, there is a long history of "Princes kissing princesses" for a reason. That being said, even Snow White and Sleeping Beauty don't revolve their movies around the kisses. But then again, you don't have to explain this to kids when they see it. Two Princes kissing, you'd have to explain and who needs that, especially with me and having quite young children. It isn't necessary.
You're equating heterosexual relations as so normal they don't need explaining to children, whereas homosexual relations as so abnormal they need explaining.
The only reason that homosexual relations need explaining is because people like you keep trying to force it to stay in the closet. If two princes kissing have been portrayed on a somewhat regular basis for decades, it would need as little explaining as a prince and princess kissing.
Children aren't in any way harmed by seeing gay romantic love any more than they are harmed by seeing animals copulating. What harms them is the fuss their Puritanical guardians make in those instances.
98% of the population is not part of the LGBT community. I would call that quite normal, yes. I have three kids 7 and under. None of them need to have me explain why two men are kissing right now. Anything different just panders to the 2% for political correctness. And if you haven't noticed, the world is still full of people who have moral objections to same-sex relationships unless you are living under a rock.
What's wrong with explaining the topic to your children? Whether you agree with same-sex relationships or not, its still a fact that many people are part of the LGBT+ community.
1. It's more than 2% especially when you include all the letters.
2. It isn't pandering to exist and be seen. It's is oppression though, on your part. Nice role model.