Beauty and the Beast- Controversy Over Homosexuality but not Abuse?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Feb 5, 2017
1,118
36
0
#21
So you are quoting me based on your anti-stance. So does this mean that;

You believe in building walls of judgement for homosexuals, whether they live that life or abstain from it? As in you are allergic to anything to do with homosexuals (lets forget the sandwich you may have eaten, or the book you read, or the movie you watched, that the hands of a homosexual may have made)
You judge people based on their sin, but forget your own sin?
Your judgement gets in the way of you loving people?


Quote"If something takes down the wall of judgement on a particular sect of people"...

" You cannot hate or judge people based on their sin"

"
They all deserve to be loved, rather than judged by anyone."

So none of the comments you made above has a thing to do with the movie.And I get real tired of people yelling about judgment and hatred when you say you dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality has already been judged,not by me,but by God. Its wrong,period. Marriage between a man and a woman is sacred and the family is the foundation of society and Gods plan. Marketing a childs movie to make this seem acceptable is wrong.

What bothers me about the "love the sinner not the sin" motto is that it has become a licence for Christians to be PC and get around preaching the truth of the Gospel. It takes away our culpability and keeps others from calling us homophobes and bigots. The message of the Gospel convicts,all of us. And Christians have watered down the message so much that people are now turning to the false religion of Islam. Where the church lets down something will take its place. Our motto should be "lets share the truth with people because we love them and want to see them saved." Christians have taken the easy,lazy way out. We have made the Gospel powerless,just so others wont call us names. Homosexuality is sin and it is bondage and if we really loved them we'd tell them the truth. Yep, I threw a bomb and expect lots of nasty comments for it.Im getting use to that from other Christians more so than non-Christians.That tells me something.
 

Fenner

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2013
7,507
111
0
#22
Haven't seen it yet, but this clip is extremely worrisome. Apparently it's not enough for the Beast to hold Belle hostage. His furniture is expected to deprive her of every comfort and, if Belle doesn't pretend to be happy she doesn't deserve food.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YIw0LCw8Nfk

A similar scene was in the cartoon.
 

Fenner

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2013
7,507
111
0
#23
I'm not sure if we will see this or not. I know there's a lot of controversy around the gay guy in it. This is just my opinion but if they hadn't said that there's an openly gay character in the movie and made a big deal about it, I don't know if anyone would notice.

I don't normally state my opinion about homosexuality because I've been bashed for it on here and it's just my opinion anyhow so who cares. Anyhow it looks well done as far as the talking furniture and stuff.
 

Laish

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2016
1,666
448
83
57
#24
I dont intend on supporting the movie.Many are boycotting it.I hope Disney takes notice.
I will probably assume they will take notice. They stick in a little controversy and get tons of free press . Everyone is talking about the film .They even have some Christian chat sites talking. So folks now have to go see what the fuss is all about. They will take note an do it again. Movie tracking sites have the movie projected to have a first week gross in the all time top 10 .There is probably high fives and fist bumping going on in the halls of Disney advertising.
My takeaway just boycott if that's what your going to do don't shout it from the rooftops. The shouting is what they want it is free press for them .
Blessings
Bill
 

Fenner

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2013
7,507
111
0
#25
I will probably assume they will take notice. They stick in a little controversy and get tons of free press . Everyone is talking about the film .They even have some Christian chat sites talking. So folks now have to go see what the fuss is all about. They will take note an do it again. Movie tracking sites have the movie projected to have a first week gross in the all time top 10 .There is probably high fives and fist bumping going on in the halls of Disney advertising.
My takeaway just boycott if that's what your going to do don't shout it from the rooftops. The shouting is what they want it is free press for them .
Blessings
Bill

Exactly my thoughts, you said a lot more elegantly than I would have.
 
S

Siberian_Khatru

Guest
#26
Wow, it's been ages since I saw it! Someone made a comment about LeFou and I didn't even remember who he was! I think I liked it as a kid, but then I didn't know much about psychology or abusive relationships. Now, I'd never show it to a child because of the problematic messages it sends. Yes, it's good to love our enemies, and if someone repents, we should forgive them. But children should never be taught that if someone locks you in a dungeon, flies into random rages, and refuses to let you leave, you should marry him if you think he's changing. Loads of women stay with abusive men because they claim the men are changing. Worse, it seems to suggest abusive men just need a good woman in their lives to change. That normalizes abuse, is simply not true in most if not all cases, and puts the burden on abused women, suggesting, 'Well, you must not be trying hard enough to change him.' I would never suggest a kidnap victim marry his/her kidnapper. It's just not healthy,
Interesting! I imagine a kid with the same degree of innocence and naivete wouldn't extrapolate from it what we do now (just like we didn't when we were kids), but it makes sense that you'd want to shelter a young mind from these themes. I respect that.

I'll have to watch the movie so I'm not blowing smoke about this if I try to discuss it.
 

Socreta93

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,244
324
83
#27
I am seeing it with the knowledge that homosexuality is wrong. But, if you know it's wrong I don't see the harm in seeing a movie :p
Seeing the movie does not mean you support homosexuality.
I use the argument that EVERYTHING on TV shows some sort of homosexuality so we can't escape. For that reason someone going to see the movie doesn't mean they support homosexuality. I believe it's an overreaction
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#28
So you are quoting me based on your anti-stance. So does this mean that;

You believe in building walls of judgement for homosexuals, whether they live that life or abstain from it? As in you are allergic to anything to do with homosexuals (lets forget the sandwich you may have eaten, or the book you read, or the movie you watched, that the hands of a homosexual may have made)
You judge people based on their sin, but forget your own sin?
Your judgement gets in the way of you loving people?


Quote "You believe in building walls of judgement for homosexuals, whether they live that life or abstain from it?"

Apparently you didn't read what I said and decided to respond anyway.


Quote " As in you are allergic to anything to do with homosexuals"

Never said that,please read what I said.


Quote "You judge people based on their sin, but forget your own sin?"

Didn't say this either. That you putting words in my mouth.

Quote"Your judgement gets in the way of you loving people?"

Does yours? Seems like you're making some pretty good judgements yourself.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#29
I use the argument that EVERYTHING on TV shows some sort of homosexuality so we can't escape. For that reason someone going to see the movie doesn't mean they support homosexuality. I believe it's an overreaction
The movie is for children.What adults watch is their business. This is marketed to kids and its wrong.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,940
113
#30
Wow, it's been ages since I saw it! Someone made a comment about LeFou and I didn't even remember who he was! I think I liked it as a kid, but then I didn't know much about psychology or abusive relationships. Now, I'd never show it to a child because of the problematic messages it sends. Yes, it's good to love our enemies, and if someone repents, we should forgive them. But children should never be taught that if someone locks you in a dungeon, flies into random rages, and refuses to let you leave, you should marry him if you think he's changing. Loads of women stay with abusive men because they claim the men are changing. Worse, it seems to suggest abusive men just need a good woman in their lives to change. That normalizes abuse, is simply not true in most if not all cases, and puts the burden on abused women, suggesting, 'Well, you must not be trying hard enough to change him.' I would never suggest a kidnap victim marry his/her kidnapper. It's just not healthy,
I agree with you totally!

Fairy Tales were only meant to scare children, and many have inappropriate themes. That being said, there is a world of difference between scaring little girls not to go into the 3 bears house, or to talk to the wolf at grandma's house, and telling a young girl to accept her fate as a virtual sex slave. (Well, that is the end goal, even if the beast turns into a handsome prince!)

Homosexuality? What about beastiality? There is no other word for what happens in this movie. And yes, a very old story, that doesn't make it right. In fact, after watching Moana with my grandkids this afternoon, I am convinced that Disney Movies sole goal (besides making reams and reams of money with one of the biggest market schemes with a captive audience) is to consistently produce movies with a totally left wing world view!

Poor Walt would roll over in his grave, if he knew!
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#31
Wow, it's been ages since I saw it! Someone made a comment about LeFou and I didn't even remember who he was! I think I liked it as a kid, but then I didn't know much about psychology or abusive relationships. Now, I'd never show it to a child because of the problematic messages it sends. Yes, it's good to love our enemies, and if someone repents, we should forgive them. But children should never be taught that if someone locks you in a dungeon, flies into random rages, and refuses to let you leave, you should marry him if you think he's changing. Loads of women stay with abusive men because they claim the men are changing. Worse, it seems to suggest abusive men just need a good woman in their lives to change. That normalizes abuse, is simply not true in most if not all cases, and puts the burden on abused women, suggesting, 'Well, you must not be trying hard enough to change him.' I would never suggest a kidnap victim marry his/her kidnapper. It's just not healthy,
I think the point of the story is that the beast is only outwardly a beast. Inwardly, he is still the prince. It's a redemption story- he is redeemed by Beauty's unconditional love for him. It's not Stockholm Syndrome, for goodness' sake. It is about redeeming love. The beast lets Beauty go, even though he knows by doing so, he'll never be changed back into his rightful form. She comes back because she loves him and knows he is not a beast but really a prince. I don't think it is abusive, at all. He is under an enchantment, and this is not the real him. In the animated film, we see his beastly behavior gradually change under the influence of love, he reverts back to his real nature. If she were abused, Beauty would not have her golden gown and library full of books. She only stays in the dungeon for a minute before the beast is brought to his senses by the furniture.

I always liked the story, anything with a redemptive theme is good- I think.
 
S

Siberian_Khatru

Guest
#32
I think the point of the story is that the beast is only outwardly a beast. Inwardly, he is still the prince.
I thought that was the total antithesis of what the point is.

I haven't seen the recent reiteration, but the 1991 cartoon describes the prince as being selfish and unkind, his curse being the result of having no love in his heart. I don't think "only outwardly a beast" applies at all; the whole theme hinges on him transforming from the inside out.
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#33
I thought that was the total antithesis of what the point is.

I haven't seen the recent reiteration, but the 1991 cartoon describes the prince as being selfish and unkind, his curse being the result of having no love in his heart. I don't think "only outwardly a beast" applies at all; the whole theme hinges on him transforming from the inside out.
He was selfish and did not want to give the old lady any help- but, she enchanted him to become a beast forever, that's kind of drastic for one selfish act. I'm probably conflating the traditional story with the Disney version. In the traditional story, a witch puts a curse on him. It's kind of clear that it was an unjust punishment for simply being self centered. After all, how many of us pass by homeless people and not offer them anything?

I thought the point of the Disney animated film is that he is not REALLY a beast, but REALLY a prince and that he made the mistake of looking on the outward appearances and was judged (harshly) for it. He's certainly not the villain.
 
S

Siberian_Khatru

Guest
#34
It's kind of clear that it was an unjust punishment for simply being self centered. After all, how many of us pass by homeless people and not offer them anything?
It's a cartoon attempting to illustrate a moral value while, at the same time, be entertaining for children. There's no need to bestialize (hurhur) society.

But anyway, the '91 cartoon is really my only source here. As best I recall, the instance of his curse isn't about a single demonstration of cruelty, but is the result of him living a life of high class, low character.

The ending is what always struck me as a little ironic; "Hey kids, it's bad to be cruel and shallow, but if you're not those things then you just might attract a beautiful woman." I'd love to check out the original, or even the abridged, fairy tale.

He's certainly not the villain.
No, I suppose he's not. Maybe his own worst enemy, at worst.
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#35
It's a cartoon attempting to illustrate a moral value while, at the same time, be entertaining for children. There's no need to bestialize (hurhur) society.

But anyway, the '91 cartoon is really my only source here. As best I recall, the instance of his curse isn't about a single demonstration of cruelty, but is the result of him living a life of high class, low character.

The ending is what always struck me as a little ironic; "Hey kids, it's bad to be cruel and shallow, but if you're not those things then you just might attract a beautiful woman." I'd love to check out the original, or even the abridged, fairy tale.


No, I suppose he's not. Maybe his own worst enemy, at worst.
But that's what fairy tales do, they give moral lessons- kind of like a commentary on society. In the original story, the beast was cursed by an evil fairy, for no real reason. It's about valuing virtue above the outer appearance. Here's a link to the original. Beauty and the Beast

So, only cruel and shallow men attract beautiful women? Abraham was a good man, and Sarah was of surpassing beauty.

I think that the story teaches mainly not to look on the outward appearance, but to look on the inward appearance, which is a Christian theme.


In the Disney film, he finds out that he loves someone more than himself. He lets her go, even though he realizes that in doing so it condemns himself to being a beast forever. But, love conquers all, and she comes back because she can look past his outward appearance and see his heart. Good lessons, all around, I think. I am partial to fairy tales, though.
 
R

ROSSELLA

Guest
#36
I think the point of the story is that the beast is only outwardly a beast. Inwardly, he is still the prince. It's a redemption story- he is redeemed by Beauty's unconditional love for him. It's not Stockholm Syndrome, for goodness' sake. It is about redeeming love. The beast lets Beauty go, even though he knows by doing so, he'll never be changed back into his rightful form. She comes back because she loves him and knows he is not a beast but really a prince. I don't think it is abusive, at all. He is under an enchantment, and this is not the real him. In the animated film, we see his beastly behavior gradually change under the influence of love, he reverts back to his real nature. If she were abused, Beauty would not have her golden gown and library full of books. She only stays in the dungeon for a minute before the beast is brought to his senses by the furniture.

I always liked the story, anything with a redemptive theme is good- I think.
While that's probably what it's meant to be about, he does still yell at her (at least one time tossing furniture around while doing it), holds her hostage and forcibly hauls her father away from her when they're both screaming and reaching out to stay with each other, orders her around, and gets angry with her for running away ( just rewatched the animated movie). That's abusive. Gifts really don't mean someone's not abusing another. Lots of abusers give their victims gifts, ether as a way of apologizing (before they do it again), to try to convince the person he/she has changed, because he/she thinks he/she should, or sometimes even because seeing the victim wear or use the things he/she gives them makes the abuser feel like the person is his/her possession. Even if she's only in the dungeon for a minute (which is a whole minute longer than the majority of police and psychiatrists think anyone should hold anyone in a dungeon), she's still imprisoned for much longer. Also, apparently in the midquel, he locks her in again because she dares to go outside against his orders.

I agree, the movie does show that love changes him and that's a good message to send to people. But by having Belle marry the Beast despite former abuse (for which he never apologizes for) and being held captive, the movie is telling kids that if they love someone enough that person will change. Belle even says, "But he's different now, Papa. He's changing." This is something battered spouses are famous for claiming, but it's usually not true. Many abusers say it will never happen again, but it does. Furthermore, even if an abuser is sincerely sorry, he/she has a high probability of relapsing. Every Christian has struggles with sin and sometimes they go a while without giving in to temptation. But how many do you know who never sin or give in? If someone struggles with rage issues, even if he/she successfully keeps them at bay for ages, there's always the possibility he/she will given in and hurt someone again.

A captive cannot have a healthy relationship with his/her captor. Stockholm syndrome is a victim forming a bond with his/her captor. That's exactly what Belle does.

Redemption is a good story. But telling kids their love will cure abusers of their abusiveness isn't and telling him/her to marry his/her abuser is absolutely terrible advice. There's no reason Belle can't be friends with the Beast, leaving and visiting under someone else's around to make sure nothing happens to her. But by marrying him, she's being put at risk to be abused in the future.

I don't think Disney set out saying, "Let's tell children that it's perfectly fine to marry kidnappers and abusers," but that's still the message that's being sold.

This whole short film is pretty good, but about 11:10 is when they specifically talk about Beauty and the Beast (except for a short clip between 6:00 and 7:00.

[video=youtube;_NjtPzSU3iU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NjtPzSU3iU[/video]
 
R

ROSSELLA

Guest
#37
I agree with you totally!

Fairy Tales were only meant to scare children, and many have inappropriate themes. That being said, there is a world of difference between scaring little girls not to go into the 3 bears house, or to talk to the wolf at grandma's house, and telling a young girl to accept her fate as a virtual sex slave. (Well, that is the end goal, even if the beast turns into a handsome prince!)

Homosexuality? What about beastiality? There is no other word for what happens in this movie. And yes, a very old story, that doesn't make it right. In fact, after watching Moana with my grandkids this afternoon, I am convinced that Disney Movies sole goal (besides making reams and reams of money with one of the biggest market schemes with a captive audience) is to consistently produce movies with a totally left wing world view!

Poor Walt would roll over in his grave, if he knew!
While I don't think slavery was the end goal, the original tale was most likely developed with two ideas in mind. One was that it's what's in the inside that counts. In the original tale, the relationship is still abusive and worrisome because he holds her hostage, asks her to marry him pretty much every single night despite her saying no, claims he'll die if she leaves him, nearly starves himself to death when she's gone longer than she said she'd be gone, and berates her for staying away (because how dare she break her promise to someone who held her captive!). However, he's never violent, never locks her in a dungeon, and gives her pretty much everything she wants/needs. The animated movie for Beauty and the Beast is one of the rare cases of Disney making a fairy tale worse than it was (you don't want to know some of the origin stories for Sleeping Beauty and Rapunzel! Or...) But another reason for the tale was to make women more complacent and give them comfort.

It was written at a time when women had little to no say in who they married, and originated from even earlier stories, so it originated at a time when only women who were very lucky or had not male relatives (sometimes that was the luck) had a say in who they married. So the tale was probably a way of saying, "I know he's ugly or seems mean, but inside he's charming. If he's not, just love him and he'll change." Sex isn't touched on in the animated version, but that was one of the main reasons people married back then. There was even at least a century where men were expected to have both a wife and at least one mistress.

I haven't seen Moana yet, but I was wondering why no one was mentioning beastiality! I don't know if it's quite that though because he's technically a human trapped in a beast's body, but it does call to mind a headline I read which said something along the lines of, "Uproar over Homosexuality in a Woman/Buffalo Romance Film."

I can totally see why parents are concerned about homosexuality in the film and I think it's something they need to think about and decide whether or not they're fine with their kids seeing it. But that doesn't mean they should make it the only deciding factor. Abuse/Stockholm Syndrome and bestiality should be major deciding factors as well!