Twitter is Blowing Up over Proposed Sequel to "Frozen"

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'd prefer the words "people" and "love" not to be lumped together with "sex" in this understanding. I am able to distinguish between people and what people do. To be perverse is to act in a way that is wrong or different, in a way that others feel is strange or offensive. Perversion is the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended. All humans have these problems, including me.

All humans find some things that others do to be perversion of some kind of standard. I do - and you do too. We disagree at times on what "should be" and therefore we will sometimes disagree on what "shouldn't be".

People and love are not things that shouldn't be.

[Big RR]

I don't know if all humans classify some things others do as "perversion". That word carries with it an air of moral superiority, and is, in effect, saying, "what you are doing is wrong because I believe it is immoral and against the natural order"; it is criticizing something which is entirely none of your business and does not affect you one bit. Indeed, I think many would say live and let live unless someone is being victimized who cannot defend him or herself (I know I would); so we declare forced sexual activity or sex with persons who cannot consent as wrong because it is victimizing someone else, but are happy to let what consenting adults do be their own business (even if we ourselves have no interest in doing the same). There's no reason to even use the word perversion.

[BoSoxGal]

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't know if all humans classify some things others do as "perversion". That word carries with it an air of moral superiority, and is, in effect, saying, "what you are doing is wrong because I believe it is immoral and against the natural order"; it is criticizing something which is entirely none of your business and does not affect you one bit. Indeed, I think many would say live and let live unless someone is being victimized who cannot defend him or herself (I know I would); so we declare forced sexual activity or sex with persons who cannot consent as wrong because it is victimizing someone else, but are happy to let what consenting adults do be their own business (even if we ourselves have no interest in doing the same). There's no reason to even use the word perversion.

I would suggest that your criteria (and mine) to intervene when "someone is being victimized etc." is exactly because we believe such victimization is immoral and against the natural order - that cruelty is a perversion of what is and should be the best in humans. I further suggest that absent a moral imperative, someone else being victimized is "none of (our) business and does not affect (us) one bit".

The issue here is not "what consenting adults do (is) their own business" but the public effort to portray "their own business" as worthy of emulation, even to the extent of displaying "their own business" in children's cartoons as something of which to be proud. It isn't.

Perversion is the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended. All humans have these problems, including me.

I see nothing wrong with using that word to describe the human condition.

Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

Psalm 53:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God," They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good.

Psalm 143:2 And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For in Your sight no man living is righteous.

Romans 3:9 What then? Are we any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 There is no one who understands; no one who seeks God.

1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

As Matthew Henry put it, "Here again is shown that all mankind are under the guilt of sin, as a burden; and under the government and dominion of sin, as enslaved to it, to work wickedness. This is made plain by several passages of Scripture from the Old Testament, which describe the corrupt and depraved state of all men, till grace restrain or change them. Great as our advantages are, these texts describe multitudes who call themselves Christians."

[Big RR]

would suggest that your criteria (and mine) to intervene when "someone is being victimized etc." is exactly because we believe such victimization is immoral and against the natural order - that cruelty is a perversion of what is and should be the best in humans.

No, I disagree; I think people have natural rights, and one of them is to be left alone by others who would impose their will on them. Children and others are not capable of making any such choices, and thus are worthy of protection. But to me it matter not what the morality of the situation is, the protection is absolute.

I further suggest that absent a moral imperative, someone else being victimized is "none of (our) business and does not affect (us) one bit".

I disagree.

but the public effort to portray "their own business" as worthy of emulation, even to the extent of displaying "their own business" in children's cartoons as something of which to be proud. It isn't

If you don't want to emulate it, don't; if you don't want your children to watch it, don't let them. But otherwise I don't see it as any of your business, nor do I see you conclusion that it is not something to be proud of as of no import to the discussion.

[Bicycle Bill]

I don't know if all humans classify some things others do as "perversion". That word carries with it an air of moral superiority, and is, in effect, saying, "what you are doing is wrong because I believe it is immoral and against the natural order"; it is criticizing something which is entirely none of your business and does not affect you one bit. Indeed, I think many would say live and let live unless someone is being victimized who cannot defend him or herself (I know I would); so we declare forced sexual activity or sex with persons who cannot consent as wrong because it is victimizing someone else, but are happy to let what consenting adults do be their own business (even if we ourselves have no interest in doing the same). There's no reason to even use the word perversion.

Just because that's how you choose to define the word doesn't alter the fact that is has a definition more in keeping with what Meade said.  There are something like 1.025 million words in the English language; why should we restrict ourselves from using any of them just because someone has set themselves up as moral arbiter and says that *THIS WORD* has a negative connotation, puts someone in an unpleasant light, or makes someone feel badly?

-"BB"-

[Joe Guy]

.....why should we restrict ourselves from using any of them just because someone has set themselves up as moral arbiter and says that *THIS WORD* has a negative connotation, puts someone in an unpleasant light, or makes someone feel badly?

Because the word perversion does have a negative connotation.

pervert

: to change (something good) so that it is no longer what it was or should be

: to cause (a person or a person's mind) to become immoral or not normal

[MajGenl.Meade]

I've a notion you're not really as laissez-faire in reality as you are in theory. Such a parochial view of the individual's right to be a part of shaping society (you say there is none - i.e. if you don't like the USA then move) is about as far from liberal actuality as can be.

It's difficult to believe that you don't see that promoting/supporting/requiring respect for "natural rights" is exactly a moral imperative. Why do you think that you are not making a moral judgement in determining what is and is not "right"?

Also I'm interested that the content of children's entertainment (movies, books, etc) is somehow "not my business". Is it yours? Is it someone else's? Is it no one at all's business? If I understand correctly, your position is that it is perfectly admissible to promote homosexuality in children's entertainment but impermissible to object to it.

[Scooter]

Just because that's how you choose to define the word doesn't alter the fact that is has a definition ...  There are something like 1.025 million words in the English language; why should we restrict ourselves from using any of them just because someone has set themselves up as moral arbiter and says that *THIS WORD* has a negative connotation, puts someone in an unpleasant light, or makes someone feel badly?

That would be fine if only those using the word didn't limit it to discussions about gay sex or other forms of sex that revolt them. For all the disingenuous bullshit about all "sins" being viewed the same, it is just that, bullshit; they don't view all sins the same, they view what they see as sexual "sins" to be in a category all their own that merits the term "perverted", while nothing else, not even murder, is described using that term. That's something you and those using the term reserve for sex that revolts you. Just say it, and have done, and stop trying to pretend otherwise because you think other people are too stupid to see through the posturing.

[MajGenl.Meade]

.....why should we restrict ourselves from using any of them just because someone has set themselves up as moral arbiter and says that *THIS WORD* has a negative connotation, puts someone in an unpleasant light, or makes someone feel badly?

Because the word perversion does have a negative connotation.

pervert

: to change (something good) so that it is no longer what it was or should be

: to cause (a person or a person's mind) to become immoral or not normal

In the midst of denying that "All humans find some things that others do to be perversion of some kind of standard", Big RR declares the standard is "natural rights" and I should "mind my own business" - in so doing, although taking care not to say it, he shows his belief that my position is a perversion of the proper standard.

I am not at all offended that he should think so. Yet of course I agree (with him and with Joe) that the word has negative connotation. All words of disapproval have negative connotations. One only has to review posts in various threads here to see the most vituperative disapproval being expressed.

I disapprove of using children's cartoons to promote homosexuality. Others apparently approve.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That would be fine if only those using the word didn't limit it to discussions about gay sex or other forms of sex that revolt them. For all the disingenuous bullshit about all "sins" being viewed the same, it is just that, bullshit; they don't view all sins the same, they view what they see as sexual "sins" to be in a category all their own that merits the term "perverted", while nothing else, not even murder, is described using that term. That's something you and those using the term reserve for sex that revolts you. Just say it, and have done, and stop trying to pretend otherwise because you think other people are too stupid to see through the posturing.

I do view all sins the same. Humans are corrupt, committing abominable deeds and injustices, unrighteous and perversions of the image of God in which Adam and Eve were created. We are created in the image of Adam (fallen) Gen. 5:1-3.

I take the point though that the word is more often used in connection with sexual corruption and abominable deeds.

[Big RR]

I don't know if all humans classify some things others do as "perversion". That word carries with it an air of moral superiority, and is, in effect, saying, "what you are doing is wrong because I believe it is immoral and against the natural order"; it is criticizing something which is entirely none of your business and does not affect you one bit. Indeed, I think many would say live and let live unless someone is being victimized who cannot defend him or herself (I know I would); so we declare forced sexual activity or sex with persons who cannot consent as wrong because it is victimizing someone else, but are happy to let what consenting adults do be their own business (even if we ourselves have no interest in doing the same). There's no reason to even use the word perversion.

Just because that's how you choose to define the word doesn't alter the fact that is has a definition more in keeping with what Meade said.  There are something like 1.025 million words in the English language; why should we restrict ourselves from using any of them just because someone has set themselves up as moral arbiter and says that *THIS WORD* has a negative connotation, puts someone in an unpleasant light, or makes someone feel badly?

-"BB"-

.

BB--you can use whatever words you want, as can Meade or anyone else. I was responding to Meade's assertion that al humans classify some things (although not necessarily the same ones) as perversions, and explaining why I believe that is incorrect. and if there are over a million words in the English language, certainly there must be words better than perversion to state what you actually want to say.

Meade--

Such a parochial view of the individual's right to be a part of shaping society (you say there is none - i.e. if you don't like the USA then move) is about as far from liberal actuality as can be.

Please elaborate about what liberal actuality is.

If I understand correctly, your position is that it is perfectly admissible to promote homosexuality in children's entertainment

When did I say that? Indeed, IMHO showing a couple of two women in no way promotes homosexuality, anymore than showing a war in children's entertainment promotes war. It is a reflection of something that exists, nothing more. Is Beauty and the Beast promoting bestiality?

And as for objecting to it, object away, I really don't care. I don't think you are correct in objecting, but thankfully we live in a free country and you can say whatever you want.
ETA: In retrospect, having reread your comments, I believe the phrase regarding it being not any of your business was misplaced; I meant to say that I don't understand why something which has no effect on you is something that needs a response of approval or disapproval from you. Clearly, every one of us has the right to voice our opinions, but IMHO there are times when it makes a lot more sense to refrain from commenting.

FWIW, I wouldn't particularly like to see the Hans Christian Andersen story changed further than Disney already has, but then I have avoided the film because I honestly do not the like way the Disney company changes (I imagine they'd say sanitizes) these classic stories; some artistic license is fine, but their changes go much further (this became worse as time wore on--their earliest films were much more faithful to the original stories). That being said, it no more affects me if she winds up with another woman than if she remains a single spinster and collects 1000 cats or marries a man and has 10 kids. It's their film and they can do what they want, and I can go or not go (and as with the first film, I will choose the latter).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Fairy 'nuff! Thanks for the clarification and engagement.

Please elaborate about what liberal actuality is

I think it is a high view of the individual to the extent that society for its own good must accommodate all (or as many as possible) views. There are times when the majority (or a minority) must allow for the existence of a minority (or majority) and adapt accordingly.

Your initial formula of "It's not your business so leave it alone" (your amendment is noted) seems to me to be an abrogation of both elements. This individual's view is not valid and "what is good for society" has been substituted by "if it doesn't affect you personally, it's OK". We do of course have a different view of what "good for society" means.

Naturally, the depiction of two females in the same movie is not an endorsement of anything. But that isn't enough, is it? There must be an underlining of the propaganda that "these are homosexual persons and that's just fine and dandy". So they'll have to be shown kissing or getting "married" or whatever is necessary for the "outing" (so to speak).

'That's just fine and dandy' is an opinion. It is a judgement. Nothing wrong with having an opinion and making a judgement as long as those options are not denied to others. I have as much right to object to such depictions in children's movies as you do to either support them or to ignore them. Otherwise, you appear to believe that society has no right at all to restrict what is offered to children as entertainment - everything is fair game for the little dears because, after all, it exists out there in the world?

But I think you're avoiding facing up to the fact that you have a standard (natural rights) and regard my departure from your standard as being a perversion of that standard. Sheltering behind the use of the word rather than the sense of the argument. Please see various definitions of perverse including Joe's changing "something good so that it is no longer what it was or should be". Everyone thinks that there is something wrong with someone else.

[Gob]

Maybe if the religious weren't so obsessed with other people's sex lives ....

[BoSoxGal]

If only they'd accept that sexuality isn't morality it's biology and since homosexuality exists in the animal world and animals are without sin, it's clearly a natural variance intended by God.

[MGMcAnick]

If faith is the basis for your objection, don't see the film don't take the grandkids. Let the rest of us openminded folks enjoy another freaking princess movie, m'kay?

Just because someone or some group suggests it, doesn't mean it will happen. My guess is, IF they make the movie, which I think is extremely doubtful, it will be a monumental box office flop. Disney doesn't want to make a flop. They don't make movies costing millions of dollars just for half a dozen open minded adults.

[MajGenl.Meade]

If only they'd accept that sexuality isn't morality it's biology and since homosexuality exists in the animal world and animals are without sin, it's clearly a natural variance intended by God.

Ah, but you overlook that this is not just fallen humankind but a fallen and corrupted world. Killing for sport and no reason at all exists in the animal world too - but we don't have any problem at all passing laws against humans killing humans for sport and no reason. Animals shit wherever they wish - we don't. Animals don't wear clothes - we do (Andrew D where are you?). Analogies from "nature" are risky....

[Scooter]

Now they want superheroes to be perverts:

As Marvel has solidified its status as the most successful franchise in history, it’s time for its films to reflect the diversity of the fans who pay to see them. The company has already taken steps to shake up its standard superhero mix with projects like “Black Panther” and “Captain Marvel” slated to be released in the next couple years, but there has been little mention of the inclusion of LGBT characters until now.

Speaking to Collider, Joe and Anthony Russo finally gave those who burn the midnight oil writing steamy Steve Rogers and Bucky Barnes fan fiction some hope.

I think the chances are strong. I mean, it’s incumbent upon us as storytellers who are making mass-appeal movies to make mass-appeal movies, and to diversify as much as possible. It’s sad in the way that Hollywood lags behind other industries so significantly, one because you think that it would be a progressive industry, and two it’s such a visible industry. So I think it’s important that on all fronts we keep pushing for diversification because then the storytelling becomes more interesting, more rich, and more truthful.

The strength of the franchise opens the door for a more diverse cast of superheroes and villains. If Marvel continues to churn out highly lucrative films, a trust develops between viewer and creator, allowing the directors to zig where they otherwise might have zagged. The Russos agreed that they want their films to continue to push the boundaries of the superhero genre in every direction.

I think this is a philosophy of Marvel, in success it becomes easier to take risks. There’s a lot of unconventional ideas in “Civil War” in terms of what people’s expectations of a superhero movie are, but I think we were able to do that because “Winter Soldier” worked and Marvel’s been working in general, so there’s more of a boldness in terms of what you can try and where you can go. So I think that’s very hopeful for all of us moving forward that bolder and bolder choices can be made.

You can also count Ryan Reynolds as one of the many calling for Marvel to go gay in the future. In fact, fans want his character Deadpool to take up a male lover in the sequel to the smash hit.

“I certainly wouldn’t be the guy standing in the way of that,” Reynolds told Variety. “That would be great.”

[RayThom]

Been there... done that.

[oldr_n_wsr]

sexuality isn't morality it's biology and since homosexuality exists in the animal world

So sex with "minors", which exists in the animal world, is OK?
How about father/daughter or mother/son?
Rape?

Just because there is a biological urge (and may go on in the animal kingdom) does not make "right" or something we should embrace or even allow to happen.
Where does that line get set?